(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "The structure and growth of residential neighborhoods in American cities"

4331.83 

Cop, 2 



3 MjCTURE AND 



OF RESIB HAL NEIGHBORHOODS 



AMERICAN CITIES 






>ERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION 



WASHINGTON, D. C. 



j 




L I B HAT^L, 
OF THeTJL,. 
U N I VERS iff 
or 1 LLI NOIS 



$&* 



to?. 4l& *** S*Pa 




Digitized by the Internet Archive 

in 2012 with funding from 

University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign 



http://archive.org/details/structuregrowthoOOunit 



THE STRUCTURE AND GROWTH 

OF RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS 

IN AMERICAN CITIES 



FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION 
WASHINGTON, D. C. 



UNITED STATES 
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
WASHINGTON: 18S9 



For sale by the Superintendent of Documents Washington, D. C. 
Price $1.50 (Buckram) 






33 l 




Federal Housing Administration, 

Washington, D. C, April 11, 1939. 

Honorable Stewart McDonald, 

Federal Housing Administrator, 

Washington, D. C. 
Dear Mr. McDonald 

In accordance with the provisions of the National Housing Act and so far as its 
resources will permit, the Economics and Statistics Division prosecutes from time to time 
studies that are deemed useful to " guide the development of housing and the creation of 
a sound mortgage market. 11 

I have the honor to transmit to you herewith the results of one such study, entitled 
11 The Structure and Growth of Residential Neighborhoods in American Cities. 11 

Intimate understanding of the character of residential neighborhoods, of their struc- 
ture, of the conditions and forces that have created them as they are and that are constantly 
exerting pressures that bring about their change is basic, both to "improvement in housing 
standards and conditions, 11 and to sound public and private housing and home financing 
policy. 

Only within very recent years has it been possible to secure the materials requisite to 
an intimate analysis of the structure of residential neighborhoods on a large scale, and 
materials bearing on the dynamic changes brought by time are still scanty. But enough are 
now available to make an approach to the problem. 

Through the generosity of the Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce and the 
Works Progress Administration and its antecedent organizations, this Division has been 
able to collate and analyze these materials. This study, made by Dr. Homer Hoyt with the 
assistance of other members of this Division, should be considered as both a suggestion in 
technique and a beginning of the attempt to generalize about a very complex and little- 
known but vital aspect of urban life. 

I recommend that the study be published. 

Very respectfully submitted. 

Ernest M. Fisher, Economic Adviser. 



Ill 

I 065892 



Author's Preface 



As stated in the letter of transmittal, the purpose 
of this monograph is to suggest techniques through 
which certain generalizations on city structure and 
growth may be evolved. It may be of value in 
serving as a useful guide in the further analysis of 
urban conglomerates of man-made structures. 

The vast storehouse of information relative to the 
structure of American cities, which was first made 
available by the Real Property Inventories of the 
Civil Works Administration supervised by the 
Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce of the 
Department of Commerce in 1934, and the subse- 
quent real property surveys of the Works Progress 
Administration, has been drawn upon freely. This 
imposing body of statistical data covered detailed 
housing characteristics more extensive in magnitude 
and more intensive in coverage than had ever been 
gathered before. These surveys of real property 
made possible a scientific analysis of city structure 
that would heretofore have been impossible. 

As the techniques for making real property surveys 
were refined through the cooperative efforts of the 
Works Progress Administration, the Central Statis- 
tical Board, the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, 
the Housing Division of the Public Works Adminis- 
tration, and the Division of Economics and Statistics 
of the Federal Housing Administration, the possi- 
bilities of utilizing the voluminous data (available 
for over 200 American cities) in developing principles 
of city structure were recognized. Thus, the pres- 
ent study was conceived. 

In addition to other members of the Division of 
Economics and Statistics who at one time or another 
contributed toward preparation of the final manu- 
script, the services of a number of individuals should 
be acknowledged. In its early stages, Mr. Eric 



Kocher, now with the Social Security Board, was 
charged with the preparation of certain of the sta 
tistical material. Of aid m advice and assistance in 
analysis were Messrs. Howard G. Brunsman, Carl 
F. Behrens, and I. Lee Amann, of the Division of Eco- 
nomics and Statistics. Mrs. Jean Williams of the 
Central Statistical Board was also of aid in preparing 
the work for publication. Mr. George W. Morris, 
Supervisor of the Division's Clerical and Mapping 
Section, and his staff, were invaluable not only in 
the actual drafting of all the maps and charts that 
appear in this volume, but also through their sugges- 
tions in mapping technique and in gathering the 
original data for city growth maps. Mr. Frank A. 
Mucha, Housing Economist, Division of Economics 
and Statistics, did the final editing and revision of 
the entire manuscript. His careful work improved 
the coherence and readability, and clarified the 
presentation throughout the volume. Among other 
of his additions might be mentioned the appendices 
and the sections on the analysis of rent contained 
in chapters 3 and 4 of part I. I am, of course, greatly 
indebted to Ernest M. Fisher, Director of the Divi- 
sion, at whose suggestion the study was first under- 
taken, who supervised its progress at every stage 
and who made many invaluable suggestions. 

To all those who thus so generously aided in the 
preparation of this study I express my thanks. 
I wish to emphasize, however, that responsibility 
for the accuracy and completeness of the manuscript 
is mine. 

Homer Hoyt, 
Principal Housing Economist, 
Division of Economics and Statistics, 

Federal Housing Administration. 

May 24, 1939. 



IV 



Contents 



Introduction 

The Technique of Analysis 3 

Part I — The Structure of Residential 
Neighborhoods in American Cities 

I. The Ground Plan of Cities 9 

II. The Segregation of Land Uses in American Cities . 15 

III. The Analysis of Residential Areas 27 

IV. An Alternative Technique in the Analysis of 

Residential Areas 49 

V. The Composition of Urban American Dwellings 

and Their Inhabitants 58 

VI. The Patterns of Residential Rent Areas in Amer- 
ican Cities 72 

Part II — The Growth of Residential 
Neighborhoods in American Cities 

I. The Influence of the Rate of City Growth on 

Neighborhood Growth 81 

II. The Form of City Growth 96 

III. Changes in Urban Land Uses 105 

IV. The Patterns of Movement of Residential Rental 

Neighborhoods 112 

Appendix 

I. Data Used in the Analysis of City Structure . . 124 

II. Types of Maps Useful in the Analysis of City 

Structure and Growth 129 

III. Research in Urban Growth — An Aid in Selecting 

Mortgage Risks 131 

Map Supplement 

Index to Supplementary Illustrations 135 

Subject Index 171 

Index of Cities 175 

Illustrations 

Fig. No. 

1. Land Survey Map: Washington, D. C, 1917 ... 10 

2. Land Survey Map: Central Business District, Los 

Angeles, 1925 11 

3. Land Coverage Map : Emporia, Kans., 1935 ... 13 

4. Settled Area Map: Chicago Metropolitan Region, 

1936 14 

5. Land Survey Map : South Chicago, 1927 16 



Illustrations — Continued 

Fig. No. Page 

6. Land Use Map: Emporia, Kans., 1935 18 

7- Land Use Map: Lancaster, Pa., 1936 21 

8. Land Use Map: Wellington, Kans., 1935 .... 22 

9. Spot Map: Condition of Structures — Charleston, 

S. C, 1934 29 

10. Block Data Map: Section of Richmond, Va., 1934 . 

11. Rent Distribution Within Blocks Grouped by 

Average Rent of Block 33 

12. Pattern of Residential Rents in Richmond, Va., 

1934 35 

13. Pattern of Residential Structures 35 Years Old and 

Over in Richmond, Va., 1934 36 

14. Pattern of Owner-Occupancy in Richmond, Va., 

1934 "7 38 

15. Pattern of Residential Structures in Poor Condition 

in Richmond, Va., 1934 40 

16. Pattern of Dwelling Units Having No Private bath 

in Richmond, Va., 1934 41 

17- Pattern of Nonwhite Population in Richmond, Va., 

1934 43 

18. Pattern of Dwelling Units Having No Central 

Heat in Richmond, Va., 1934 45 

19. Pattern of Overcrowded Dwelling Units in Rich- 

mond, Va., 1934 46 

20. Low-Rental Residential Blocks in Richmond, Va., 

1934 " 47 

21. Blocks With 25 percent or More Residential Struc- 

tures in Poor Condition in Richmond, Va., 1934 . 47 

22. Blocks With 25 percent or More Residential Struc- 

tures 35 Years Old and Over in Richmond, Va., 

1934 47 

23. Blocks With 50 Percent and Over Nonwhite Occu- 

pancy in Richmond, Va., 1934 47 

24. The Coincidence of Factors Indicative of Poor 

Housing in Richmond, Va., 1934 47 

25. 79 American Cities With More Than 10,000 Negro 

Population in 1930 64 

26. Pattern of Nonwhite Population in Chicago, 111., 

1934 69 

27. Pattern of Nonwhite Population in Washington, 

D. C, 1934 70 

28. Theoretical Pattern of Distribution of Rent Areas in 

30 American Cities, 1934 77 

29. Growth of High-Grade Residential Areas, Chicago, 

1857-1930 83 



V 



Illustrations Continued 

Fig. No. Page 

30. Percentage of Increase in the Population of 70 

American Cities, 1920-30 86 

31. Comparison of Long-Time Population Growth of 20 

Selected American Cities 87 

32. Immigrants Admitted to the United States, 1820- 

1938, Compared With Net Alien Arrivals or De- 
partures, 1908-38 c *> 

33. Percentage Increase in Population hy Years m 

Chicago, 1835-1934, and Los Angeles, 1900-1937 . 91 

34. Factors Affecting Urban Population Growth Com- 

pared With Value of New Urban Residential 
Building and Urban Residential Rents 94 

35. The Chicago Metropolitan Region, Settled Areas, 

1830-1936 98 

36. Growth of Settled Areas and Transportation Lines, 

Washington, D. C, 1857-1938 103 

37- Increased Intensity of Land Use in the Grand Central 

Zone, New York, 1922-29 106 

38. Growth of Business and Manufacturing Areas in 

Chicago, 1857-1930 110 

39. Distribution of Rental Areas, 1934, Compared With 

Settled Areas, 1887, Washington, D. C 113 

40. Shifts in Location of Fashionable Residential Areas in 

6 American Cities, 1900-1936 115 

41. Enumeration Schedule for Standard Technique for 

Real Property Surveys 126 



List of Tables 



No. 



I. Distribution of Dwellings: New York City 
Compared With its Suburban Cities and 

Towns, 1930 

II. Distribution of Dwellings: Chicago Compared 
With its Suburban Cities and Towns, 1930 . . 

III. Proportion of Residential Structures 35 Years 

Old or More in Each Rental Group, Rich- 
mond, Va., 1934 

IV. Proportion of Owner-Occupied Dwelling Units 

in Each Rental Group, Richmond, Va., 1934 . 
V. Proportion of Structures in Poor Condition in 

Each Rental Group, Richmond, Va., 1934 . . 
VI. Proportion of Dwelling Units Without Private 

Bath m Each Rental Group, Richmond, Va., 

1934 

VII. Proportion of Colored Occupants in Each 

Rental Group, Richmond, Va., 1934 . . . . 



Pnge 



25 



26 



37 



39 



39 



42 



42 



List of Tables Continued 

No. Page 

VIII. Proportion of Dwelling Units Lacking Central 
Heat in Each Rental Group, Richmond, Va., 
1934 44 

IX. Proportion of Overcrowded Dwelling Units m 

Each Rental Group, Richmond, Va., 1934 . . 44 

X. Proportionate Representation of Housing Fac- 
tors in Each Rental Group, Richmond, Va., 
1934 49 

XL Percent of Blocks With Different Degrees of 
Concentration of Structures 35 Years Old or 

More, Richmond, Va., 1934 51 

XII. Percent of Blocks With Different Degrees of 
Concentration of Tenant-Occupied Dwelling 
Units, Richmond, Va., 1934 52 

XIII. Percent of Blocks With Different Degrees of 

Concentration of Structures in Poor Condi- 
tion, Richmond, Va., 1934 53 

XIV. Percent of Blocks With Different Degrees of 

Concentration of Dwelling Units Lacking 
Private Bath, Richmond, Va., 1934 53 

XV. Percent of B'ocks With Different Degrees of 
Concentration of Nonwhite Occupants, Rich 
mond, Va., 1934 54 

XVI. Percent of Blocks With Different Degrees of 

Concentration of Dwelling Units Lacking 

Central Heat, Richmond, Va., 1934 .... 55 

XVII. Percent of Blocks With Different Degrees of 

Concentration of Overcrowded Dwelling 

Units, Richmond, Va., 1934 55 

XVIII. Characteristics of the Residential Areas in 64 

American Cities in 1934 59 

XIX. Distribution of Residential Values and Rents 

in 64 Cities in 1934 61 

XX. Distribution of the Duration of Occupancy in 

Dwelling Units in 64 Cities 61 

XXI. Distribution of Nonwhite Population in Selected 

Cities by Enumeration Districts in 1934 ... 65 
XXII. Proportion of Nonwhites and Their Distribu- 
tion in Blocks'Grouped by Degree of Nonwhite 
Concentration in 64 Cities, 1934 66 

XXIII. Distribution of Residential Blocks by Average 

Block Rents in 25 Cities, 1934 73 

XXIV. Maximum and Minimum Rates of Population 

Change for Cities in Each State with Popula- 
tion of 10,000 and Over in 1930 by Decades. 

1900 to 1930 85 

XXV. Net Movement of Persons in the United States 

From Farms to Cities, 1920-37 89 



VI 



Introduction 

THE TECHNIQUE OF ANALYSIS 



Introduction 



The Technique Used in Analysing the 

Neighborhoods in 

T 

XHE American city at first glance may well 
give the observer an impression of almost utter 
confusion. 1 Confronted by what may appear to 
be a chaotic jumble of structures in the urban com- 
munity, the student who is searching for an orderly 
arrangement of land uses or residential neighbor- 
hoods in the American city may be puzzled as to 
where or how to begin his analysis. 
• Is the American city an entity whose different 
types of land uses and residential neighborhoods are 
arrayed in definite patterns or is it a disorganized 
mass of structures scattered about in hit or miss 
fashion? The answer to this question requires the 
formulation of principles of city structure and the 
examination of the fundamental theories of the phys- 
ical character of the urban community. 

Inquiry into the character of the internal organi- 
zation of cities, however, is not merely an academic 
matter. There is a whole series of vital urban 
problems, the solution of which depends upon 
proper analysis of the apparent riddle of the internal 
nature of American cities. The selection of areas 
for slum clearance, the determination of mortgage 
lending policy by areas, and decisions in regard to 
zoning or rezoning of sections for given types of 
land use all depend upon the forces governing the 
interrelationship of different types of areas and the 
past and prospective movements of different types 
of neighborhoods. 

1 See Report of the Urbanism Committee to the National Resources Com- 
mittee, Our Cities, Their Role m the J^ational Economy (Washington, D. C, 
June 1937), p. 5. 

"If the observer views it from an airplane, the typical American city will 
appear as a sprawling mass of structures of varying size, shape, and construc- 
tion, crisscrossed by a checkerboard street pattern which here and there 
assumes irregularities. The cells or blocks into which the city is divided seem 
to lack any organic grouping into units, even though the variations of the 
terrain may suggest the articulation of series of blocks with one another. 
The general impression to be derived from the arrangement is that of unimagi- 
native, stereotyped, mechanical monotony, only rarely will one find even a 
partially organic pattern throughout." 



Structure and Growth of Residential 
American Cities 

This monograph has the two principal objectives 
of furnishing the tools for analysis and developing 
principles of general application that may be used 
in the intelligent examination of the internal structure 
and growth of American cities. In its twofold 
purpose, this study will first suggest a series of 
techniques by which the terra incognita of a city 
may be mapped and charted, and the growth of its 
various parts measured. Secondly, it will seek to 
develop principles of urban structure and growth 
that may give an insight into the causes of the 
present arrangement of land uses and residential 
neighborhoods in American cities. 

The present study is based upon the past per- 
formance of the myriad forces governing neighbor- 
hood interrelationships and movements in city 
growth. The series of techniques which form the 
tools for analysis are designed to bring order out of 
chaos and to provide an approach to an under- 
standing of the basic forces. The reliability of the 
principles formulated, however, will depend upon 
the effect of the impact of new forces and upon their 
being tested by further study. In years to come, 
continued eradication of slum areas or a cessation of 
population growth may foster conditions favoring a 
doubling back of high grade residential areas rather 
than a continuation of growth in line with past 
experience. Or, it is possible that common use of 
aircraft or other means of rapid transit may result 
in a greatly accelerated decentralization. 

The techniques suggested and employed in this 
study, and the principles of urban structure and 
growth suggested are not set forth as the only 
method of attack upon the difficult question of the 
nature of the structure and growth of cities. There 
are innumerable roads by which the subject may be 
approached. Rather than spend too much time in 
debating as to the choice of routes, however, the 



definite order of procedure outlined below is sug- 
gested because it has proved of value when applied 
to the solution of practical problems. 

For the sake of clarity in exposition, this mono' 
graph is divided into two major sections. The first 
part analyzes the city for the purpose of determining 
its internal structure and the relationships of its 
various neighborhoods to each other. The second 
part investigates the movement or growth of the 
entire city and its component parts. An appendix 
will acquaint the reader with methods of compila- 
tion and provide him with definitions of the basic 
data used throughout. It will also give the reader a 
clearer understanding of the method of construction 
of the several types of maps utilised in the different 
stages of the technique. A technique developed by 
the Division of Economics and Statistics of the 
Federal Housing Administration as an aid in the 
selection of mortgage risks is also outlined in the 
appendix. A map supplement contains numerous 
illustrations for further clarification of the text. 
This introduction, as its title indicates, outlines the 
technique followed in the body of the monograph. 

The order of treatment of the subject matter of 
this monograph has a special significance because 
there is a definite sequence in the successive steps 
that are used in analyzing city structure and growth. 
The section of this monograph relating to the struc- 
ture of the city is placed first because, primarily, it is 
necessary to ascertain whether there are any definite 
patterns of land uses and neighborhoods in a city 
before the movement of these uses and of residential 
neighborhoods in particular, over a period of time, 
can be studied. 

The first section begins with an inquiry into the 
structure of a city. It is necessary first to ascertain 
the extent of the area covered by urban buildings. 
In other words, the ground plan — the configuration 
and shape— of the city must be visualized before its 
component parts can be analyzed. The first step in 
the technique, therefore, employs the use of urban 
" topographical, " "land coverage," and "settled area" 
maps. As previously stated, the method of con' 
struction of these different types of maps is outlined 
in the appendix. These maps reveal the shape of 
the city and the interstices within the urban mass. 
From these maps, delineating the urban area as a 
whole, current generalizations as to the shape of 



cities whether they are rectangular, circular, or 
star-shaped may be thoroughly tested. 

Having examined the city as a single unit, the 
second step in the technique breaks this undiffer- 
entiated body into its component parts to establish 
the pattern of land use. "Land use" maps are 
utilized to reveal the ground area occupied by each 
type of use, and the extent to which the different 
uses are separated or intermingled. Such maps also 
serve as a guide in formulating a generalization with 
regard to the pattern of land use. The generaliza- 
tions thus evolved serve to illuminate the spatial 
relationships between commercial and industrial 
functions and to segregate the residential areas from 
other forms of land use. 

Having segregated the home areas from the general 
urban mass for study, the third major step in the 
technique differentiates the several types of resi- 
dential areas on the basis of their essential housing 
characteristics. The analysis of these home areas 
and the formulation of generalizations apparently 
governing the distribution of the several types of 
residential urban areas are the main subjects of this 
monograph. 

The basic data used in the analysis of city struc- 
ture are taken from numerous real property sur- 
veys. The several types of information gathered in 
such surveys, together with definitions of each type, 
are outlined in the appendix. The data in these sur- 
veys have been collected in such form that almost 
any sized area may be selected as a standard unit 
of measurement. For our purposes, we have taken 
the city block, which is a relatively homogeneous 
and unchanging entity. The average character- 
istics of dwelling units in city blocks are used as 
the basis for showing differences in neighborhoods 
in a city. 

One form of map which has been used for the 
purpose of studying variations m the several resi- 
dential areas of a city is the "block data" map. This 
type of map indicates for each block in a city the 
characteristics as represented by averages showing 
eight of the items for which data have been gathered 
in real property surveys. For our analysis, however, 
a single map of that type is not sufficiently revealing. 

Accordingly, using the residential areas in the 
city of Richmond, Va., for illustrative purposes, 
the technique suggested prescribes the mapping 
of each of a number of housing characteristics on 



separate maps. Each of these maps shows block by 
block gradations for a single characteristic only as 
indicated by averages. The characteristics used 
for this purpose are those which throw the most 
light on differences in residential areas. 

For the purpose of analyzing any urban area, a 
selection of maps of housing characteristics appro- 
priate to the study may be used. By superim- 
position of maps of such selected and limited 
factors, the area in which these characteristics 
overlap can be delineated. A series of special 
transparent maps illustrative of Richmond's most 
adverse housing conditions is shown as an example 
of such an analysis. The centers of the worst 
housing conditions are indicated at the points of 
coincidence of all factors used. 

The technique that has just been suggested for 
tracing patterns of residential areas is suitable 
for analysis of cities where tabulations on a block 
basis are available or where there is time for an 
intensive survey of a city. As an alternative to 
this third step in the series of techniques outlined 
above, however, it is desirable to have a quick and 
fairly accurate method of analyzing cities for which 
basic data are lacking. If it is found that one 
factor represents and stands for a whole congeries 
of other housing factors, then a pattern of a city 
on the basis of this one factor can be made. Accord- 
ingly, the average monthly rent of homes in a block 
is examined as a possible alternative index of those 
housing factors used in the third step of the above 
technique. The reliability of rents serving in this 
capacity is established on the basis of relationships 
between rent and other factors. 

Thus the subject has been narrowed down until 
the proposition is set forth that essential differ- 
ences in the housing characteristics of different 
areas in a city may be measured by residential rent 
alone. Having been established as a correct method 
of analysis for cities in which intensive real property 
surveys have been made, this method may be applied 
in urban communities lacking comprehensive data. 
This alternative step m the technique affords quick 
analysis of the home areas of a city to those who 
desire to start at this point. 

Having suggested a method for use in the analysis 
of the structure of residential neighborhoods, a 
chapter is included which will serve to acquaint 
the reader with the general composition of the dwell- 



ings in 64 American cities with respect to a number 
of housing characteristics. Because inharmonious 
racial groups tend to have an influence upon rents 
in urban residential areas, the composition of 
American cities with respect to the degree of 
clustering of racial groups is thoroughly discussed 
in this chapter. 

Finally, having previously established rent as 
being significantly representative of a congeries of 
other housing factors, the "rental area 11 maps of a 
number of cities are used to arrive at the principles 
governing the distribution of the high, low, and 
intermediate residential rental areas in any urban 
community. 

Thus, beginning with the defining of the shape 
and extent of the undifferentiated mass of urban 
structures comprising the American city, and pro- 
ceeding — by means of a series of techniques evolved 
in the first part of this monograph — through the 
establishment of patterns of land use, some tenta-/ 
tive principles governing the distribution of resi- 
dential areas, classified according to rent, are finally 
suggested. For any given moment of time, the city 
has a certairTTixed external form. It has definite 
areas allocated to certain types of land uses. It has 
neighborhoods segregated into types according to 
rents paid. There is some intermingling of uses and 
also of types of residences making it often impossible 
to describe hard and fast boundaries. What may 
be a residential area today may be partially a busi- 
ness or factory section tomorrow. Zones or sections 
are determined by the predominance of one use, 
not by its exclusive presence. Nevertheless, in an 
analysis of structure, the city stands still. The 
structures existing at the moment the cross section 
is made fix the boundaries of the settled area. The 
commercial, industrial, and residential sections at 
that point of time have immovable locations. The 
blocks with highest and lowest rents of dwelling 
units are anchored to definite areas. 

Having examined the structure of the American 
city as a static entity in the first part of this mono- 
graph, the second section deals with the growth of 
the city and the movement of land uses and neigh- 
borhoods over a period of time. 

The first step in the analysis of the growth of a 
city involves a consideration of those factors affect- 
ing the growth of the entire city. The rate of 
urban growth varies greatly as between individual 



cities. Cities that grow at a rapid rate change their 
internal structures much more rapidly than cities 
expanding at a slow pace. Most city growth takes 
place by spurts as opportunities of employment 
attract migrants. The sudden growth of city pop- 
ulation is made possible by an influx of immigrants 
from Europe or of adult workers with their families 
from the farms and villages of America. As the 
cities grow, they tend to lose population at the 
center and increase rapidly in numbers on the 
periphery. 

Therefore, the second step in the technique sug- 
gested in studying city growth concerns itself 
with the form of growth of the entire city. A series 
of "settled area" maps, showing settled areas of a 
city at successive periods of time, or a single map 
showing buildings erected at various time intervals 
shows whether the city is expanding in concentric 
circles, in long axial lines, or flinging out independent 
nuclei of settlement beyond the main body of the 
city. Thus the direction of growth and the influ- 
ence of topography on the shape of the settled area 
are clearly brought out. With the data from a number 
of the largest cities for the entire period of their 
growth available for analysis, some generalizations as 
to the form of city growth may be advanced on the 
basis of a fairly broad experience. 

This growth of the city, tending to cause changes 
in the form of the settled area of the city, also brings 
about changes in locations of areas devoted to differ- 
ent types of land uses and of the various grades of 
residential sections. Just as the location of these 
various areas at one moment of time is traced in the 
first part of this monograph, so the second section 



considers the direction of movement of each type of 
land use or occupancy. Accordingly, the third step 
in the analysis of the growth of cities segregates 
the commercial, industrial, and residential areas at 
different periods of time. This stage in the tech- 
nique permits the formulation of generalizations 
according to which business, commercial, and resi- 
dential uses appear to change their location as the 
city grows. 

Finally, the technique employs the use of "dynamic 
factor 11 maps to trace the movement of different 
types of urban residential rent areas. The succes- 
sive steps outlined above now bring us to the chief 
subject of investigation in this monograph. The 
series of dynamic factor maps showing high, low, 
and intermediate rental areas at successive 15- or 20- 
year intervals permits the study and summation of 
the forces affecting the growth of residential areas 
in American cities. 

Thus techniques are presented for use in the 
analysis of, first, the structure and, second the 
growth of residential areas in American cities. As 
stated previously, the techniques employed and the 
tentative generalizations derived from their applica- 
tion are not the only avenues of approach to the 
question of the nature and growth of cities. And, 
in their application to cities not hitherto studied, 
modification of techniques and suggested generaliza- 
tions set forth will doubtless prove necessary, but 
at least the analytical method here suggested will 
provide a starting point and may serve as a basis 
for its own revision by the new evidence it will 
uncover. 



Part I 

THE STRUCTURE OF 

RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS 

IN AMERICAN CITIES 



Chapter I 



The Ground Plan of Cities 



A 



T the outset of this investigation we are 
confronted with what may appear to be a chaotic 
jumble of structures in American cities, and the 
problem is to discover some clue to a pattern or 
series of patterns. While the main problem is con- 
cerned with the distribution within the city of the 
different kinds of residential neighborhoods, our 
technique of approach begins with a generalized 
picture that shows the configuration of the entire 
urban mass and thence proceeds by a logical se- 
quence to the ultimate solution. 

The initial objective is to ascertain whether the 
physical structures composing a city are arrayed in 
any pattern. There is no attempt at first to differ- 
entiate between different types of land use or be- 
tween different kinds of residential neighborhoods. 
The city is an aggregation of structures whose shape 
and density are influenced by the nature of the ter- 
rain on which it stands. Upon this site, whose 
water courses, elevations, and valleys were origin- 
ally determined by nature, there is superimposed by 
man a pattern of streets and blocks. Within this 
framework of blocks are the structures that provide 
homes and working places for the people of the city. 
It is possible in one comprehensive view to see the 
topography, the street plan, and the ground area 
occupied by buildings in any city. Typical maps 
based on ground surveys are shown in figure 1 for 
Washington, D. C, and in figure 2 for the central 
business district of Los Angeles. These maps pre- 
sent a general view of the urban mass to be studied. 
They reveal not only the boundaries of the settled 
areas of the city, but also the interstices within the 
inner structure. In recent years, the increasing use 
of aerial photography has made possible rapid 
mapping of urban areas. 
What pattern of city structure is revealed by this 
/ comprehensive view? First, the amount of vacant 
/ land or yard space within the block increases as one 



goes from the center of the city to the periphery. 
At the business center, the blocks are almost solidly 
occupied by business structures. This area of inten- 
sive utilization of the ground space is succeeded by 
blocks that resemble hollow squares; the street 
frontages are lined with buildings, but there are 
vacant backyards or interior courts. As one goes 
still farther out from the center of the city, rows of 
detached houses appear, with yard space on the 
side and in the rear. On the periphery of the 
settled area the blocks are only partially developed 
with houses. Finally, there is a penumbra or twi- 
light zone of subdivided land between the city and 
the country in which there are many blocks with 
only a few structures and other blocks that are 
entirely vacant. Beyond these last urban outposts 
of partly filled subdivisions lies the country, with 
its large tracts of land and scattered farmhouses. 

The decline in the percentage of land covered by 
buildings as one goes from the center to the periph- 
ery of a city is also shown by land coverage maps. 
These maps do not indicate the specific location of 
buildings within the block, nor do they indicate 
topographical factors, but they do show the propor- 
tion of the land in each block that is occupied by 
structures. Available maps of this type, however, 
have the advantage of being of more recent date 
than the land survey maps. The 1935 land coverage 
map of Emporia, Kans., (fig. 3), illustrates how the 
total percentage of land covered by buildings 
decreases as one leaves the business center — where 
the ground areas within the blocks are almost 
entirely covered by structures — and goes towards 
the city limits where there are only a few scattered 
houses. 

Maps indicating the location of every building in 
a city and its environs disclose not only the density 
of land coverage, but they show the shape of the 
entire urban community. A city as viewed from 



FIGURE 1 



LAND SURVEY MAP 

WASHINGTON, D. C. 1917 



SCALE IN FEET 
2000 4000 6000 8000 




>'» 'W^vLlL:'. 1 .=3:ni^t'^j r :|[.' jL nr^ E r;,!r,,j^ L:3 ^ / 

1. " ■ ■ ■ I I i ' rr-^ _ _ , — . -_ ^_ d.J L' L~M U U Oil L-! ■_-!>. i— a I rrvi r ■' I- ■ r-i -*■ I • • — r- r- - r~m ■ ■ t- >K. 



■■i r . ID 



^GaniDEHBocnn ulje e 
fea-5«iraanE!ag , «- DBSlVf 



nil E £ - " ^, ■ ! n LI 2 S Cj !=£! [■[] i 

CeE?SiaSSQDe!SDD2IDDP2£]C 





3 me": ci :'i 
• ."•;IG3L35 



' ieS J.'';"' ii' " ' "-'-.'~ ; .F 



=":"n:f/ . !.• 



SOURCE: DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 
US. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 



10 



FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION 
DIVISION OF ECONOMICS a STATISTICS 



FIGURE 2 



LAND SURVEY MAP 

LOS ANGELES BUSINESS DISTRICT 



925 



SCALE IN FEET 

5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 



5000 




> \^:^m_ 



A V . A K I 
















';■-'• .ftv.EI >^\V-- 1 i=j':.nniTL}at: 













s, 







L^'!=S 



M^A , - f^-'X' ■- T I A -N' \ll NjoP% 

W^MmQt #2f^I -"•» ••••" ----4 ♦ 
4k{ME ^ * '•■ [%*P§ v.*.v. :i:':i 3«m 



ips . 



SOURCE; DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 
U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 



1G3253— 39- 



FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION 
DIVISION OF ECONOMICS 8 STATISTICS 



11 



this broad perspective frequently has a star-shaped 
form with bands of houses strung out along princi- 
pal highways leading to the center of the city. 
Beyond the main body of the city are often found 
satellite communities or suburbs, each an independ- 
ent center that is separated from the central set' 
tied area by stretches of vacant land as in Washing' 
ton, D. C, shown in figure 1. 

While the area of a city occupied by structures, 
other things being equal, tends to form a circle 
around the central business district, there are a 
number of factors which tend to distort this circu- 
lar pattern. First, in cities along a broad, deep 
river, such as Kansas City, St. Louis, and New 
Orleans, there are relatively few structures across 
the river from the main body of settlement. Second, 
the bands of houses extend further along fast trans- 
portation lines and moderate elevations than in 
areas inadequately served or on low ground. For 
example, in Washington, D. C, the land occupied 
by houses extends outward along the ridges of 
Connecticut Avenue and Sixteenth Street, leaving 
vacant the valleys now in Rock Creek Park. 

The configuration of settled areas of other large 
cities assumes unique patterns under the influence 
of topography. The land occupied by buildings in 
the New York City area does not extend evenly in 
all directions from the office building and financial 
centers on Manhattan Island.! There are great 
tracts of vacant land in Staten Island, in the New 
Jersey marshes, and in low lying areas in Brooklyn 
and Queens. Prongs of structures extend along fast 
transportation lines, and numerous suburban com- 
munities cluster around railroad stations. The land 
occupied by buildings in the Boston metropolitan 
area is broken up by bays, rivers, and hills. From 
the main body of settlement on Boston Bay and the 
Charles River, there are a number of independent 
towns or community centers that have coalesced in 
the growth of the main body of the city. Chicago, 
situated on a flat plain, has strings of towns or sub- 



urban communities that form almost continuous 
bands of settlement along a number of radial trans- 
portation lines, giving it the appearance of an 
organism with great tentacles of houses stretching 
out into the prairie. 

Land survey and land coverage maps thus present 
in minute detail the street pattern of cities, the 
ground area covered by structures, the water 
courses, other topographical features such as land 
elevations. In order to see the general shape of the 
settled area at a glance, however, a less detailed 
picture of the area occupied by the buildings of a 
city is desirable. Generalization is accomplished by 
solidly blacking in on a map all those areas in which 
the buildings are close enough together to be classed 
as urban. As in the settled area map of the Chicago 
metropolitan region shown in figure 4, all areas 
having a density of more than one house to the acre 
are solidly blacked. Such maps are useful in show- 
ing the boundaries of urban development in a 
comprehensive view in which the detail of single 
structures is subordinated to the picture of the 
entire urban body. 

The built-up areas of some metropolitan com- 
munities assume a star-shaped form. This pattern, 
and the penumbra of subdivided but unoccupied 
land that extends beyond and between the prongs 
of growth, is sharply portrayed in the map of the 
Chicago region. 

The exact shape of each city is influenced by topog- 
raphy and transportation, and there are no two that 
have exactly the same form. Every city has its 
buildings arrayed in a pattern that may be somewhat 
circular, or oblong, or star-shaped. To obtain a 
general view of the shape of the settled area of a city 
is the first step in the analysis of its structure. Hav- 
ing determined the boundaries of the urban body, 
the next step is to break down what is so far an 
undifferentiated mass of structures into the com- 
ponent elements and to search for patterns of land 
use within the urban body as thus defined. 



12 



FIGURE 3 



LAND COVERAGE MAP 

EMPORIA , KANSAS 1935 



SCALE IN FEET 

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 

I 




LEGEND 



CITY LIMITS 



LAND NOT IN PERMANENT USE 



LAND IN PERMANENT USE BUT NOT COVERED 
BY MAJOR STRUCTURES 



AREA COVERED BY MAJOR STRUCTURES 



Source Emporia Real property Survey, December, 1935 
W.P.A. Project Number 530 



FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION 
DIVISION OF ECONOMICS 8 STATISTICS 



13 



FIGURE 4 



SETTLED AREA MAP 
CHICAGO METROPOLITAN REGION 

1936 

2 4 6 8 10 12 
SCALE IN MILES 




FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION 
DIVISION OF ECONOMICS 8> STATISTICS 



14 



Chapter II 



i 



The Segregation of Land Uses in American Cities 



N the first step in the analysis of the structure of 
the city, the configuration or shape of the urban 
community was examined. It was seen that the 
hundreds or thousands of separate buildings form 
various types of patterns around central business 
areas like a scattering of iron filings about a mag- 
netic core. The boundaries, the sizes, and the 
shapes of entire urban communities were clearly 
defined by the use of settled area maps. They did 
not, however, reveal the inner compositions of 
urban areas. 

While the primary subject of investigation is the 
location of different kinds of residential areas within 
the city, it is necessary first to find out whether 
dwelling units are segregated into definite sections, 
or whether they are intermingled with factories, 
stores, and office buildings in one confused jumble. 
The next step in our inquiry, therefore, is to ascer- 
tain whether there is an orderly arrangement or in- 
ternal pattern according to which structures devoted 
to different functions are segregated in definite 
areas. This involves the examination of evidence 
presented by maps showing the use made of land 
within a given city. 

The land survey maps used in the preceding 
chapter to show the actual location of structures 
frequently give a clue to the nature of land use. 
Thus the central business district of Los Angeles 
(fig. 2) with its dense land coverage is clearly out- 
lined, as are also the strings of commercial develop- 
ment extending outward along Seventh Street, 
Pico Street, and Main Street. The central business 
districts of Chicago, Washington, D. C, and De- 
troit are likewise indicated by the high percentage 
of land area covered by structures at the point of 
converging highways. Similarly, the location of 
factories and industrial buildings in South Chicago, 
indicated by large black rectangles in figure 5, are 



clearly differentiated from single-family homes by 
their relative size and also by their proximity to 
railroad lines. In cities of predominantly single- 
family homes like Los Angeles, commercial areas 
tend to form solid lines of development along main 
thoroughfares or street car lines. 

A more precise picture of land use is obtained by 
land use maps portraying data made available in 
recent years by real property surveys. The type 
of use made of each structure in the city, as indicated 
in those surveys, is shown on such land use maps by 
two methods. Either each type of land use in the 
city may be shown on separate maps or all of them 
may be brought together on a single map. 

Thus, the former method would indicate the lo- 
cation of buildings used for factories on one map, 
stores on a second map, and residential structures 
on a third map. In land use maps in this form, the 
exact location of structures within the block may be 
indicated by solid black squares or rectangles, 
making it easy to distinguish between the location of 
residential and commercial areas and to see the ex- 
tent of land coverage in each case. Maps of this 
nature are employed by Bartholomew in his study 
of urban land uses. 1 

The other method, indicating the street frontages 
occupied by each of the several characters of land 
use on a single map, is illustrated in figure 6 for 
Emporia, Kans. Except in reproductions on an 
unusually large scale, it is not feasible to show exact 
ground areas covered by each type of use. The 
reduction of maps to usable size reduces the rec- 
tangles representing buildings to proportions so 
minute as to render different types of crosshatching 
indistinguishable. In these maps there is no attempt 

1 Bartholomew, Harland, Urban Land Uses, Harvard City Planning Studies, 
Vol. IV (Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1932). See pis V, VI, VII, 
VIII, and IX. 



15 



FIGURE 5 



LAND SURVEY MAP 

SOUTH CHICAGO 1927 



SCALE IN FEET 



5000 4000 5000 2000 1000 
I I I | | 



3000 

_ 




SOURCE: DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 



FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION 
DIVISION OF ECONOMICS 8 STATISTICS 



16 



to show separate structures where they all are de- 
voted to the same type of use. Where there are 
several land uses in a block, however, the location 
of each type of use by street frontage is clearly 
revealed by different types of crosshatching. From 
such maps it is possible to determine whether there 
is a chaotic jumble of land uses or a segregation of 
uses into definite areas to form a pattern. 

According to the concentric circle theory of the 
distribution of land uses frequently set forth, urban 
land uses are arrayed in a series of concentric circles 
in an almost rigid geometric pattern. The theory 
has been summarized as follows : ~ 

At the center of these zones lies the financial and office dis- 
tnct; immediately surrounding this and interpenetrating it is 
the central retail district where the large department stores 
and high-grade specialty shops are found. Clinging close to 
the skirts of the retail district lies the wholesale and light 
manufacturing zone. Scattered through this zone and surround- 
ing it, old dilapidated dwellings form the homes of the lower 
working classes, hobos, and disreputable characters. Here the 
slums are harbored. Cheap second-hand stores are numerous, 
and low-priced "men-only" moving-picture and burlesque shows 
flourish. 

In the next zone heavy manufacturing may be found, al- 
though naturally this use breaks up the uniformity of the 
pattern to hover along routes of transport. The use charac- 
teristic of this district is that of homes of the respectable 
working classes. Apartment houses and tenements of the 
better grade are common. 

Beyond the workingmen's homes lies the "residential" dis- 
trict, a zone in which the better grade of apartment houses and 
single-family residences predominate, and beyond this the 
commuter's zone of finer houses and larger lots. 

Thus, the concentric circle theory sets forth that 
land is most intensively used in the financial and 
office district at the center of the city. Land so 
used at the heart of the city has the highest value 
in the urban area and is dominated by tall struc- 
tures. Encircling it is the retail shopping district 
which, in turn, is surrounded by the wholesale 
and light manufacturing zone. Interspersed with 
the latter and surrounding it are the homes of the 
lower working classes. The next zone contains a 
dotting of heavy manufacturing and the homes of 
the more respectable workers — -successively en- 

- Fisher, Ernest M., Advanced Principles of Real Estate Practice (New York 
The Macmillan Co., 1930), p. 126. See also Park, R. E., and Burgess, E. W. 
The City (Chicago, Univ. of Chicago Press, 1925), ch. II; and Haig, R. M., 
"Toward an Understanding of the Metropolis— The Assignment of Activities 
to Areas in Urban Regions," Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. XL, No. 3 
May 1926, p. 402. 



circled by belts of better grade residential and 
commuter zones. 

The above concentric circle theory of land uses 
offers an ideal pattern that helps to bring order out 
of chaos and is not to be unduly criticized because 
the pattern is never exactly realized in any actual 
city. Fisher, in 1930, questioned the concentric 
circle theory : 3 

The following observations should be made regarding the 
variations from this pattern which are commonly found in any 
community. First, the zones should not be thought of as 
rigidly determined nor as of uniform width. They interpene- 
trate each other. Especially is this true of retail uses. They 
follow population and are to be found in all zones except where 
restrictions either public or private prevent them. The tend- 
ency of heavy manufacturing to spread out along transportation 
lines is another example of such lack of uniformity. In fact, 
all the uses tend to hover near transport routes and are ex- 
tended further in the vicinity of such routes than in districts 
not served by them . * * * Not uncommonly a type of use 
will be found only on one side of the use which it is presumed 
to surround. The wholesale district, for example, seldom 
entirely surrounds the retail, but lies adjacent to it on only 
one side. The line of demarcation between two adjacent 
zones is, furthermore, not definitely drawn. One fades into 
the other and the exact point at which one ends and the other 
begins cannot be considered as definitely fixed. * * * 

The second variation from the pattern that is particularly 
noticeable is the tendency seen in cities of considerable size 
for subcenters to spring up and start another pattern similar 
to that whose center is the center of the city. These sub' 
centers begin with the familiar neighborhood stores and grow 
with population growth until the different uses find it desirable 
to locate near them. 

Finally, unfavorable topography may entirely break up the 
pattern. A city located on a lake, like Chicago, or on a penin- 
sula, like New York, or on a river, like Detroit, finds this 
physical barrier too great to break through it. The pattern, 
therefore, becomes distorted. Hills, also, may be equally 
powerful in breaking up the pattern. * * * 

By utilizing the land-use maps and real property 
surveys made available in recent years, numerous 
factors may be mentioned that lend support to and 
amplify the criticism quoted. The limitations and 
qualifications thus brought out seem to render the 
theory doubtful even as a statement of an ideal pat- 
tern of land uses. Step by step, the land use as- 
cribed to each concentric circle is examined in the 
following paragraphs and considered in the light of 
known facts in a number of cities. 

1. The financial and office zone and the retail 
shopping zone. — The retail shopping center, and not 

3 Fisher, Ernest M., op. cit., pp. 126, 127. 



17 



FIGURE 6 

LAND USE MAP 
EMPORIA, KANSAS 1935 

SCALE IN FEET 



jf 



I, 



-B- 



"m 




ODDD 
□I 




□nna 



ODHDOD 

□ODDBonn 



iQinn 



i 



laDnDBOQQQDDDD 



D 



hi 

Li 



1=l 



□ D 






\ 



\ 



DDQDnDQ 



^ 



lJ 



□noDnnnnnaoDn 
— q 




US 



n 





Jj=i 

D 




V 

LJ 





|J a 

a 

e3 



' ' y-\: 



CITY LIMITS 



SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED OR DETACHED 
TWO TO FOUR FAMILY 
APARTMENT WITHOUT BUSINESS UNITS 
APARTMENT WITH BUSINESS UNITS 



MIXED BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL 

COMMERCIAL 

INDUSTRIAL 



^ 



PUBLIC BUILDINGS (INCLUDE LETTER) B2& 

PARK OR PLAYGROUND (P) CEMETERY (C) 



PERMANENT OPEN SPACE 
TEMPORARY BUSINESS USES 
PARKING OR USED CAR LOTS 
UNUSED 



^ 



+ 



Source: Emporia Real Property Survey , December, 1935 
w.pa project number 530 



18 



FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION 
DIVISION OF ECONOMICS S STATISTICS 



the financial center, is the central point in most 
cities, if the center is determined by converging 
lines of traffic, density of pedestrian traffic, or by 
peak land values. 4 In the smaller cities the finan- 
cial, office building, and retail shopping center may 
be located within the radius of a few blocks along 
"Main Street" so that the financial, commercial, 
and office areas may not be separated distinctly. 

Where the financial and retail shopping areas are 
separated, it is the retail shopping center that lies 
nearest the converging lines of transportation that 
bring people from all points on the periphery of the 
city to the center. 

In New York City, lines of transportation from 
Long Island, New Jersey, and the residential areas 
of lower Westchester County, upper Manhattan 
and Bronx, converge near the large department 
stores centered about Thirty-fourth Street and Sixth 
Avenue. Grand Central Terminal, at Forty-second 
Street and Park Avenue, is another converging point 
for incoming traffic from all residential zones and is 
the "uptown" office center. The financial center, 
Wall Street, lies 4 miles to the south on the lower 
tip of Manhattan Island. It also is easily accessible 
to commuters, especially from New Jersey, Brook- 
lyn, and Staten Island, but it cannot be considered 
the only "center. 11 

In Chicago, the retail shopping center is at State 
and Madison Streets, the point where the main 
traffic arteries from the west, north, and south con- 
verge. It is at the point of maximum pedestrian 
traffic and peak land values. On the other hand, 
the financial center at Jackson and La Salle 
Streets, six blocks from State and Madison, is 
located at a dead-end street on one corner of the 
central business district away from mass crowd 
movements, except those which it generates within 
itself. Similarly, in London, Paris, and many other 
cities, the retail shopping center is at the chief con- 
verging points of traffic. v > 

There is, of course, a fundamental reason why the 
retail shopping center should be located at the point 

4 Except possibly in world or continental financial centers, as in London 
or New York. One writer has stated that "* * * the point of highest value, 
which means the most desirable location for a retail shop in all cities, except 
in the few financial capitals where the banking and office district produces 
higher values than the retail shops." Hurd. R. M., Principles of City Land 
Values (N. Y., Record and Guide, 1924), p. 85. According to unpublished 
reports from Federal Housing Administration valuators, the peak point of 
land values is located at the retail shopping centers in all the Federal Housing 
Administration regional or district office cities, except New York. 



most convenient of access to people from all parts 
of the city. Shoppers tend to go to centers where 
they can find a large assortment of goods in close 
compass, so they can make all their purchases with 
a minimum expenditure of time and effort. 5 On the 
other hand, the financial center, while it must be 
conveniently located with respect to transportation 
lines leading to all points on the periphery of the 
city, need not be located at the center of the con- 
verging transportation lines. The financial district 
does not depend upon convenience of access to the 
maximum number of people. It is a separate insti- 
tution or a group of specialized institutions — finan- 
cial and produce exchanges, banks, brokers 1 offices, 
and insurance companies connected with leading 
world cities by telegraph, telephone, cable and radio. 

The office buildings of a city may be located near 
either the retail shopping center or the financial 
center. In New York there are two main office-build- 
ing centers — one in Wall Street, the other conven- 
ient of access to Grand Central Terminal. Office 
buildings, like the financial center, need not be 
located at the focal point of all transportation lines, 
but they should be close to it. 

Such are some of the principal functions of the 
central business district, which includes the retail, 
financial, and office building centers. The entire 
area is correctly placed at the point where the main 
traffic routes leading into the city converge at a 
central point. It is marked on the sky line of the 
city by a cluster of skyscrapers. It is indicated on 
land use and land coverage maps by intense concen- 
tration of land use. It is the market place, the seat 
of direction and control of the municipal and business 
activities. 

However, this central business district is not 
always a definitely limited and circumscribed com- 
mercial area that contains all the stores in a city. 
Bands of commercial growth or a string-like develop- 
ment of stores may extend out on one or more of the 
main thoroughfares radiating from the main busi- 
ness center. Thus, lines of stores have grown out 
along both Connecticut Avenue and Fourteenth 
Street in Washington, D. C. In Charleston, W. 
Va., there has been a stringlike development of 
stores along Washington Street. In Detroit, strings 
of stores have grown out from the central business 
district along Fort Street and the main axial avenues : 

5 Hurd. R. M., op. tit., p. 82. 



19 



Woodward, Jefferson, Gratiot, Grand River, and 
Michigan. 

Again, satellite business centers have developed 
independently beyond the central business dis- 
trict, or on the city's periphery. These are usually 
located at or near suburban railway stations, ele- 
vated or subway stations, intersecting points be- 
tween radial and crosstown street-car lines, or inter- 
secting points of main automobile highways/' 

2. The wholesale and light manufacturing zone.— 
This zone does adjoin the central business district 
but it usually does not entirely encircle it. This was 
brought out by Fisher.' In Chicago, at one time 
prior to 1900, the wholesale district did almost 
entirely enclose the central business district. Now, 
however, the wholesale area m Chicago lies mainly 
to the west of the "Loop." 

In this wholesale and light manufacturing zone are 
a scattering of old residential dwellings, the rem- 
nants of the residential sections of an earlier and 
smaller city whose commercial and industrial expan- 
sion has intruded into sections that were originally 
exclusively residential. 

3. The heavy manufacturing zone. — At one time, 
there was a tendency for heavy manufacturing indus- 
tries to be located in areas in close proximity to the 
retail business center, In the case of towns or 
cities that had become established as trading centers 
at crossroads or along river banks before the coming 
of industry, the early factories tended to locate 
near the business center and in some cases to en- 
circle it. In the horse and wagon days, industries 
had to be situated near water or rail transportation 
and near the labor supply. The same transporta- 
tion routes that served the city as a commercial 
emporium were a necessity to the factory. Hence, 
the early industries of Chicago crowded the banks 
of the Chicago River and its branches near the 
central business district, where rail and water 
commerce met. Heavy industry almost surrounded 
the first business district. The same spot — the 
converging point of traffic — was advantageous for 
both commercial and industrial uses. The com- 
mercial uses outbid the industrial uses for the most 



6 See Davie, M. R., "The Pattern of Urban Growth," in Studies in the 
Science of Society (New Haven, Yale University Press, 1937), p. 161. See also 
Fisher, Ernest M., op. at., p. 127. See also Ratcliff, R. U., "Some Principles 
of Site Selection in Outlying Retail Subcenters." Fall 1935 issue of Actional 
Marketing Review (Since merged with The Journal of Marketing. N. Y.). 
7 Fisher, Ernest M., op. at., p. 127. 



central point, however, so that the factories were 
shoved out to the area just beyond the commercial 
zone, but still very close to it. 

The present pattern of industrial land use is 
frequently so different from this original concentric 
zone pattern that it is doubtful whether it can be 
asserted that there is any general tendency for a 
concentric zone of heavy industry to surround the 
central business district. As we have seen, Fisher, 
in 1930, 8 questioned the concentric zone theory. 
And Davie, 9 criticizing the concentric circle theory 
in a recent study of land use, found that the heavy 
manufacturing industries of New Haven, Conn., 
followed transportation lines instead of forming a 
concentric circle around the central business district. 
Similarly, Cleveland 10 has no concentric zone of 
factories around the central business district. Ex- 
amination of the land use maps of Lancaster, Pa., 
(fig. 7), Wellington, Kans. (fig. 8), and Chicago 11 
also will reveal no support for the theory. 

There are fundamental reasons why heavy indus- 
tries now follow railroad lines along river valleys 
or lake or ocean fronts in long bands of growth 
rather than remain near the central business district. 

First, with the coming of the automobile truck, 
the belt-line railroad, and the specialized industrial 
districts near freight interchange points on the 
periphery of cities, factories on the outer edges of 
cities but with direct rail or water connections, or 
both, have better transportation facilities than fac- 
tories in the heart of the city. 

Second, industrial sites are cheaper and taxes are 
lower on the periphery of cities. More land can be 
used for yard and storage space. One-story build- 
ings permitting continuity of factory operation with- 
out an interruption of factory processes on each 
floor level can be constructed. There being no 
streets to cross, direct rail connections at the most 
convenient points can be made. 

Third, the distance from the workers' homes is not 
so important because of the widespread use of the 
automobile. The automobile truck has likewise 
minimized the advantage of close proximity to the 
downtown area for shipments and deliveries of 
goods. 

* Fisher, Ernest M., op. cit., pp. 126-127- 
» Davie, M. R., op. cit., pp. 142-161. 

10 Davie, M. R., op. cit., p. 160, Map of Cleveland. 

11 Sze fig. 38 in pt. II. ch. III. 



20 



FIGURE 7 



LAND USE MAP 
LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA 1936 



SCALE IN FEET 




SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED OR DETACHED 
TWO TO FOUR FAMILY 
APARTMENTS WITHOUT BUSINESS 
APARTMENTS WITH BUSINESS UNITS 



CITY LIMITS 

MIXED BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL 

COMMERCIAL 

INDUSTRIAL 

PUBLIC BUILDINGS (INCLUDE LETTER) 



PERMANENT OPEN SPACE 
TEMPORARY BUSINESS USE 
PARKING OR USED CAR LOTS 
UNUSED LAND 



I+++1 



SOURCE LANCASTER REAL PROPERTY SURVEY 1936 
WPA PROJECT NUMBER 65-23-4780 



21 



FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION 
DIVISION OF ECONOMICS 8 STATISTICS 



FIGURE 8 

LAND USE MAP 
WELLINGTON, KANSAS 1935 



SCALE IN FEET 



500 1000 1500 2000 2500 

-I 1- 



uTTj 

inn 

inn 



nnn 
□□□ 

nan 






nnoco 

Gotfcp 

GQQO 
DO Mr 

a 

oano 
□□□ 

□ to 



3CCQDDI3'Q_ 
DOOPd'OO 

gnnn 

tp dd d nr Ti no □ 
papapyLJaoDa 







SINGLE FAMILY 

ATTACHED OR DETACHED 

TWO TO FOUR FAMILY 
APARTMENT 

WITHOUT BUSINESS UNITS 

APARTMENT 

WITH BUSINESS UNITS 



MIXED BUSINESS 8 RESIDENTIAL 

COMMERCIAL 

INDUSTRIAL 



PUBLIC BUILDINGS 

S - SCHOOLS 

F - FIRE STATION 

C - CHURCH 

H - HOSPITAL 

G - GOVERNMENTAL BLDGS. , ETC 



ssss 



PERMANENT OPEN SPACE 

P - PARKS 

PARKING OR USED CAR LOTS 

UNUSED LAND 

CITY LIMITS 



^ 



SOURCE Wellington Real Property Survey 1935 
W P A Project No. 65 - 82 - 763 



22 



federal housing administration 
division of economics a statistics 



The pattern of heavy industry today, instead of 
being concentrated near the central business dis' 
trict, tends to follow river valleys as in Youngstown, 
Ohio, and Pittsburgh; and river fronts, as along the 
Niagara River at Buffalo and the Detroit River at 
Detroit; or lake fronts and rivers tributary to lakes, 
as in South Chicago, the Calumet region, Indiana 
Harbor, and Gary in the Chicago region; or bays 
or deep tidal rivers as the Hudson, the East River in 
New York, and the Delaware River at Philadelphia; 
or outer belt lines as in Chicago, Detroit, etc. 
Another pattern of industrial growth is that of a 
cluster of industries in a specialised industrial sec 
tion like Bush Terminal in Brooklyn, N. Y., or the 
Clearing District in Chicago where 100 industries 
are located in a belt 3 miles long adjacent to the 
Clearing Freight Yards. These specialized indus' 
trial districts furnish services such as daily freight' 
car door deliveries. 

Thus, the pattern of industrial land uses is so 
shaped by the unique topographical features of 
cities and by the contours of hills and the curves of 
rivers that it rarely conforms to the pattern of con' 
centric circles. Moreover, the amount and extent 
of land used for industrial purposes varies so much 
as between different cities that no general industrial 
pattern can be established. Industrial uses of land 
are almost nonexistent in capital cities like Wash' 
ington, D. C, or resort cities like Miami, Fla., and 
Atlantic City, N. J. On the other hand, cities like 
Gary, Ind., Schenectady, N. Y., and Johnstown, 
Pa., derive their main support from industry— 
approximately half of their gainfully employed being 
directly engaged in industrial pursuits. In Chicago, 
where one'quarter of the population is industrially 
employed, 16.8 percent of the privately developed 
land area was used for industry in 1936. 12 

Differences in extent of industrialization are 
revealed by the land use maps. Thus, the land use 
map of Emporia, Kans. (fig. 6), shows only a few 
small industrial areas, while that of Lancaster, Pa. 
(fig. 7), reveals extensive sections along the river 
occupied by factories and mills. 

4. The zone of wor\ingmens homes. — In placing 
the zone of workingmen's homes near or in the same 
zone as that of heavy industry, the concentric circle 

12 Young, Hugh A., Rezomng Urban Areas. (Chicago Planning Commis- 
sion), p. 936, drawing 103. Paper presented at the meeting of the City 
Planning Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, January 21, 1937- 



theory of land use recognizes the tendency of work' 
ingmen's homes to be near the factories. However, 
as factories do not form a concentric circle around 
the central business district, so neither do the 
workingmen's homes encircle the central core of 
the city. In this respect, the concentric circle 
theory breaks down, as will be indicated in chapter 
VI., The Patterns of Residential Rental Areas, in 
which the subject will be more fully discussed. 

5. The residential zone. — The concentric circle 
theory of land use seems to imply that the higher 
rent areas form a complete circle around the outer 
edge of the city. That this has not been true in the 
case of scores of cities studied will be indicated in 
chapter VI. This theory also indicates that this 
outer zone on the periphery of the city includes the 
high grade apartment areas or that there is a pro' 
gressive rise in rents of apartments as one goes out' 
ward from the central business district. This is not 
true of the Gold Coast of Chicago, nor of Park 
Avenue in New York City, where the socially elite 
pay the highest rents in the city for apartments 
located within a mile of the central business dis' 
trict. 

6. The commuters'' zone. — Beyond the periphery 
of the city are nuclei of suburban settlements not 
in the form of zones but in the form of scattered 
isolated communities. Some of these settlements 
are occupied by fine homes, but other towns may 
be middle class in character and others may consist 
of shacks. It is not true that one progresses from 
dilapidated dwellings at the center to an encircling 
belt of mansions on all points of the periphery of 
the city. 

Thus, the concentric circle theory of land use, 
while convenient as a starting hypothesis for a 
pattern of land uses, is subject to modification. 

In this chapter we have considered mainly the 
differentiation between business and residential 
uses. The concentric circle theory is correct in 
placing the commercial and some of the industrial 
uses near the center of the city and in putting the 
residential areas in the encircling belts beyond this 
central core. In applying the concentric circle" - 
theory to different types of residential areas styled 
"slums, 11 "workingmen's homes, 11 and "commuters 1 
zone of finer houses, 11 there has been introduced a 
qualitative factor which will be more fully treated 
in a later chapter. 



23 



Having examined the over-all pattern ot urban 
land uses, and postponing the analysis of residential 
areas for later discussion, there still remains to be 
discussed here the intensity of residential land use. 
This is determined by the type of structures used 
for dwelling purposes. Residential land uses 
occupy the largest proportion of all the privately 
developed land in American cities. In the 16 
cities of between 5,000 and 300,000 population 
analyzed by Bartholomew, 13 such home uses utilized 
over 80 percent of the land developed by private 
owners within the city limits. Because of the 
predominance of residential land use in the total 
urban area, it is important to break this large area 
down into subareas according to the predominating 
type of structure, such as single-family, two-family 
or multifamily structures. 

Single-family structures predominate in American 
cities. In the 16 self-contained cities studied by 
Bartholomew, 74.2 percent of the privately devel- 
oped land area was occupied by such single-family 
structures, as compared to only 4.28 percent of the 
same area occupied by two-family buildings and 2.23 
percent occupied by multifamily structures. Simi- 
larly, the 1930 census reported that slightly over 
84 percent of all United States urban residential 
structures in that year were single-family homes, and 
63 percent of the American urban families lived in 
such structures. 14 

In many American cities, single-family structures 
predominate to such an extent that two-family struc- 
tures and apartments are too few in number to form 
a distinct area. 15 In many of the smaller cities, two- 
family structures are scattered through single-family 
areas, and multiple dwellings likewise seem to be 
distributed in small isolated groups over a wide 
area." 5 These multiple dwellings do seem, however, 
to be clustered around the central business district 



« Bartholomew, H., op. tit., pp. 25, 36, 46. 

» U. S. Department of Commerce, Fifteenth Census of the U. S., J 930, 
Population, Vol. VI (Washington, 1933), p. 10. 

15 Bartholomew, H., op. at., pi. VI, showing two-family area in Louisville, 
Ky., Springfield, Mo., San Antonio, Tex., Sacramento, Calif, and Jefferson 
City, Mo. 



or in belts along rapid transit lines, while the single- 
family home areas extend from the center to the 
periphery of the city. In New York and Chicago 
there are distinct single-family, two-family, and 
multiple apartment areas, where one type of struc- 
ture predominates. 

Data gathered in the last decennial census indicate 
that patterns of types of residential areas in large 
American cities vary widely. 17 Columbus, Ohio, at 
one extreme, has 87 percent of its families residing in 
single-family structures and only 7 percent in mul- 
tiple units with three or more families. Manhattan 
Borough, in New York City, at the other extreme, 
has only 3 percent of its families living in single-unit 
homes and 95 percent in multiple unit structures. 

In New York City, the multiple apartment is the 
almost exclusive type of residential structure on 
Manhattan Island and the portions of the Bronx and 
Brooklyn that are directly adjacent to Manhattan 
Island. 18 The tallest apartment buildings form a 
ridge along the routes of subways. Two-family 
areas are located just beyond the multiple-family 
areas in Brooklyn and the Bronx. Single-family areas 
are located still farther from the business center of 
the city in Queens, Brooklyn, and the Bronx beyond 
the two-family areas. The suburbs of New York 
City are composed mainly of single-family homes. 
While only 25 percent of the residential buildings on 
Manhattan Island are single-family structures, table 
I shows that from 80 to 99 percent of the residential 
structures in satellite communities — New Rochelle, 
Scarsdale, White Plains, Hempstead, Maplewood 
(N. J.), Larchmont, Pelham, and Garden City — are 
of the single home type. In most of these suburban 
towns, the apartment buildings are located near the 
local railroad station unless this area is marred by 
adverse developments. 

'« Bartholomew, H., op. tit., pi. VII, showing multiple apartment areas for 
the same cities. 

» U. S. Department of Commerce, Fifteenth Census of the U. S., 1930, 
Population, Vol. VI (Washington, D. C, 1933), p. 72. 

i! Mayor's Committee on City Planning of the City of New York. Progress 
Report (N. Y. City, June 1936), pp. 36, 37. 



24 



In Chicago, there is a facade of tall apartment 
buildings along the Lake Shore Drive from Streeter- 
ville to Belmont Avenue and on the south side from 
Fiftieth Street to Seventy-fifth Street. 19 Practically- 
all of the residential structures over seven stories 
tall are in this lake front fringe. Three story walk- 

19 Hoyt, Homer, One Hundred Tears oj Land Values in Chicago. (Chicago, 
University of Chicago Press, 1933), p. 243. Map showing location of buildings 
over seven stories tall. 



up multiple apartments extend along the elevated 
railroad lines and in the area near the lake front 
behind the facade of tall elevator apartment build- 
ings. Two-family areas predominate on the West 
Side. The single-family areas of Chicago are located 
in sections on the periphery of the city as shown by 
the distribution of residential structures by type in 
table II for Chicago and some of its suburbs. In 
the suburbs, single-family units again predominate. 



Table I. — Distribution of Dwellings 

New York City Compared With Its Suburban Cities and 
Towns, 1930 



City 



New York City: 

Manhattan Borough . 

Bronx Borough 

Brooklyn Borough . . 
Queens Borough . . . . 
. Richmond Borough . 



Hoboken, N.J... 
Paterson, N.J... 

Passaic, N.J 

Yonkers, N. Y . . . . 
East Orange, N. J 



Clifton, N.J 

Mount Vernon, N. Y . . . . 

New Rochelle, N. Y 

Montclair, N.J 

Hastings on Hudson, N. Y . 

Scarsdale, N. Y 

White Plains, N. Y 

Mamaroneck, N. Y 

Hempstead, N. Y 

Great Neck, N. Y 



Maplewood, N. J . . 
Larchmont, N. Y . . 

Pelham, N. Y 

Garden City, N. Y . 



Distance 

m miles 

from 

Times 

Square 



4 
10 
13 

2 
13 
10 
13 

7 

ll 

m 

17 
12K 

18), 

19 

22}^ 
20 
19 
13 

18 
18 

m 

18 



Total dwellings 



Number 



56, 254 

57, 137 

245, 212 

169, 254 

29, 503 

4,547 
20, 648 

7,001 
14, 996 
10, 090 

8,167 

8,263 
8,221 
7,421 
1, 125 

1,517 
5, 695 

2,071 

2,727 

867 

4,920 

1,007 

935 

1,570 



Percent 



100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 

100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 

100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 

100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 

100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 



1-family dwellings 



Number Percent 



14, 295 

23, 921 
112,086 
119,060 

24, 675 

1,928 
10, 206 
3,522 
9,169 
6,835 

5,752 

5, 883 
6,585 

6, 116 
933 

1,269 
4,783 
1,795 
2,455 
790 

4,589 
961 
905 

1,550 



25.4 
41.9 
45.7 
70.3 
83.6 

42.4 
49.4 
50.3 
61.2 
67.8 

70.4 
71.2 
80.1 
82.4 
82.9 

83.7 
84.0 
86.7 
90.0 
91. 1 

93.3 
95.4 
96.8 
98.7 



2-family dwellings 



Number Percent 



5,348 
14, 856 
74, 832 
37, 233 

4,299 

760 
8,318 
2,332 
2,538 
2,445 

2, 108 

1,469 

998 

957 

92 



9.5 

26.0 
30.5 
22.0 
14.6 

16.7 

40.3 



3-or-more family 
dwellings 



Number Percent 



33. 
16. 

24. 



25.8 
17-8 
12. 1 
12.9 
8.2 



36,611 
18, 360 
58, 293 
12, 961 
529 

1,859 
2,124 
1,147 
3,289 
810 

307 
911 
638 
348 
100 



173 


11.4 


75 


514 


9.0 


398 


180 


8.7 


96 


165 


6. 1 


107 


61 


7.0 


16 


262 


5.3 


69 


22 


2.2 


24 


20 


2. 1 


10 


11 


■ 7 


9 



65. 1 
32.1 
23.8 

7.7 
1.8 

40.9 
10.3 
16.4 
21.9 
18.0 

3.8 
11.0 
7.8 
4.7 
8.9 

4.9 
7.0 
4.6 
3.9 
2.0 

1.4 

2.4 

1. 1 

.6 



Source: U. S. Department of Commerce, Fifteenth Census of the Li. S., 1930, Population, Vol. VI (Washington, D. C, 1933), tables 18, 21, and 23 for New York 
and New Jersey. 



25 



Table II. Distribution of Dwellings 
Chicago Compared Wit/i Its Suburban Cities and Towns, 1930 



City 



Chicago, 111 

Cicero, 111 

East Chicago, Ind . . 
Chicago Heights, 111. 
Evanston, 111 



Gary, Ind 

Berwyn, 111. . . 
Blue Island, 111. 
Maywood, 111 . 
Oak Park, 111. . 



Bellwood, 111. . 
Lake Forest, 111 . 
La Grange, 111 . 
Wilmette, 111 . . 
Wheaton, 111 . . 



Elmhurst, 111 

Highland Park, 111. 

Wmnetka, 111 

Park Ridge, 111 ... . 



Distance 
in miles 

from 

State and 

Madison 

Streets 



w 

35 

nK 

24 
8 
15 
10 
12K 

ny 2 

27 
12% 

n% 

22% 

15 
27,% 
16K 
13 



Total dwellings 



Number 



403, 229 

10, 645 

7,272 

3,737 

9,957 

16, 090 
9,339 
3,321 
5, 193 

11,591 

1,017 
1,293 
2,131 
3,343 

1,745 



Percent 



100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 

100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 

100.0 

100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 



1 -family dwellings 



Number 



3,399 


100.0 


2,678 


100.0 


2,457 


100.0 


2,522 


100.0 



209, 685 
6,572 
4,922 
2,718 

7,376 

12, 757 
7,622 
2,753 
4,431 

10, 039 

886 
1, 154 
1,908 
3,166 
1,656 

3,227 
2,551 
2,346 
2,461 



Percent 



52.0 

61.8 

67.7 
72.7 
74.1 

79.3 
81.6 
82.9 
85.3 
86.6 

87. 1 
89.3 
89.5 
94.7 
94.9 

94.9 
95.3 
95.5 

97.5 



2-family dwellings 



Number 



1 16, 340 

3,308 

1,395 

828 

1,471 

1,885 

1,389 

518 

604 

879 

121 
114 
164 
143 
82 

152 

103 

114 

42 



Percent 



28.9 
31.0 
19.2 
22.2 
14.8 

11.7 
14.9 
15.6 
11.6 
7.6 

11.9 
8.8 

7.7 
4.3 
4.7 

4.5 
3.8 



3-or-more famik 
dwellings 



Number 



1.7 



77, 204 

765 

955 

191 

1, 110 

1,448 

328 

50 

158 

673 

10 
25 
59 
34 

7 

20 
24 
25 
19 



Percent 



19. 1 

7.2 
13. 1 

5. 1 
11. 1 

9.0 
3.5 
1.5 
3. 1 
5.8 

2.0 
1.9 
2.2 
2.0 
.4 

.6 

.9 

1.9 



Source: U. S. Department of Commerce, Fifteenth Census of the U. S., 1930, Population, Vol. VI (Washington, D. C, 1933), tables 18, 21, and 23 for Illinois. 



Thus, in the cities that have developed intensive 
multiple apartment areas, these structures tend to be 
located near the central business district or along 
fast transportation routes leading to the central 
area. Because of the more intensive use of the land, 
such multiple-family structures can occupy sites that 
are too expensive for single-family homes because of 
their proximity to the central business district or 
because of unusual advantages of the terrain, such as 
frontage on lakes or oceans. 

As one goes from the center of the city to the 
periphery, there is a tendency for the residential use 
of land to become less intensive. Multiple family 
units are succeeded by two-family structures and 
they in turn by single-family dwellings, and the 



amount of yard space increases. Very intensive 
land uses may be maintained for considerable dis- 
tances, however, along lakes, ocean fronts, or fast 
transportation lines, such as subways, electrified 
railroads, or elevated lines. There are axial as well as 
central growths of large apartment units and also 
the isolated nuclei of apartments in the midst of 
single-family home areas on the periphery of the 
city, as in Washington, D. C, and Shaker Heights in 
Cleveland. Single-family home areas tend to fill in 
land along axial lines located at a considerable dis- 
tance from the center of the city or the interstices 
between axial lines of growth that are reached by 
crosstown lines. 



26 



Chapter III 



i, 



The Analysis of Residential Areas 



.N preceding chapters it has been noted that the 
separate buildings of different cities do tend to 
form patterns ot various shapes and that within 
these urban settled areas most of the residences tend 
to be distributed in a certain definite way with 
respect to commercial and industrial districts. Hav- 
ing thus narrowed the subject matter to the investi- 
gation of the residential neighborhood itself, we are 
now confronted with the main subject of this mono- 
graph — namely, whether there is a segregation of 
different types of dwelling units in definite areas, or 
whether the American urban community contains a 
hodgepodge of all kinds of residences in all parts of 
the city. 

Is there any pattern according to which poor 
residences are segregated from mansions, so that 
houses of similar type and rental range are located 
close together, or is there an indiscriminate mixture 
of shacks and palaces in the same block, with "rich 
man, poor man, beggarman, thief living side by 
side? The measurement of the characteristics of 
dwelling units located in a city involves not merely 
the outlining of the areas occupied by the extremes 
in the social scale, but also a delineation of the areas 
occupied by the numerous strata of the social hier- 
archy from the top to the bottom. If the value of 
any single home is affected by the condition, type, 
and value of surrounding homes, then it is of the 
utmost importance to the mortgage lender that 
patterns of residential areas be prepared, showing 
the relationship of sections of different types to 
each other. If the criminal is partly a product of 
his neighborhood and of poor housing conditions, 
then the patterns showing the location and shape 
of such blighted areas have great significance for the 
student of social conditions. 

As a first step in determining patterns of residential 
areas, a unit of measurement must be selected that 



will be satisfactory. The units of measurement 
available in real property surveys made in recent 
years are individual dwelling units, individual 
structures, city blocks, enumeration districts, and— 
in some cases — "economic areas. 11 Both dwelling 
units and structures, taken individually, are units 
too small to throw into relief definite changes in 
neighborhood characteristics. On the other hand, 
an enumeration district — usually ranging in size 
from 10 to 30 blocks —is so large as to obscure 
variations and gives rise to averages of extremes. 
And an economic area — an area selected to combine 
as many as possible of the homogeneous factors 
influencing the stability of real estate values — is by 
definition an area shifting in size with the passage 
of time. 

The city block, however, has definite advantages 
over any of the other frur geographic units men- 
tioned above. It is a relatively fixed area bounded 
on four sides by city streets. It is an area small 
enough to permit the showing of gradations in 
characteristics of residential neighborhccds and yet 
not so small as to obscure the pattern by minutiae of 
detail. In addition, each individual structure within 
the confines of a block has a high degree of influence 
on the determination of the value of the structures 
in the rest of the block, as will be illustrated in later 
pages. In the real property surveys, block data in 
blocks with mixed land uses refer only to the resi- 
dential uses of land. Such relative advantages indi- 
cate that the city block is the most satisfactory 
primary unit of measurement for the analysis of 
residential neighborhoods. 

The block having been chosen for the unit of 
measurement, on what basis shall the pattern of 
residential areas be formulated? A pattern simply 
shows the grouping within the city of dwelling units 
on the basis of some single characteristic of the resi- 



1 (i.-i25:i— 39- 



27 



dence. Each urban dwelling unit is a physical entity 
with numerous characteristics. Every residential 
structure is of a given size, shape, height, volume, 
age, physical condition, style of architecture, mate- 
rial of construction. It may or may not possess cen- 
tral heating equipment, private baths, indoor toilets, 
electricity for lighting. With reference to occu- 
pancy, it may be vacant or overcrowded; it may be 
occupied by tenants or owners, or by white or other 
than white persons. With reference to its financial 
status, the homes may be mortgaged or free and 
clear of all encumbrances. Patterns for each one of 
these factors may be prepared. The real property 
surveys made in 203 cities : in the past 5 years pro- 
vide data for as many as 30 different elements. The 
appendix provides definitions of the varied data 
gathered in real property surveys. 

How is it possible from this wealth of material to 
develop patterns of residential neighborhoods that 
may be conveniently and quickly used? One method 
of approach is to take each factor or characteristic 
of the dwelling unit separately and to place a spot 
on a map of the city at the address of the dwelling 
unit in which that factor is found. Thus, a spot 
may be placed on a map at the location of each house 
in need of major repairs — as shown in figure 9 for 
Charleston, S. C. A concentration of spots in cer- 
tain areas quickly indicates the districts in which 
the greatest number of houses were in poor condi- 
tion at the time of the survey. Conversely, the 
absence of spots in other districts indicates neigh- 
borhoods with good housing conditions. While 
these spot maps have their merits, there are certain 
disadvantages in their use. First, only one factor 
can be shown on one map. Second, the number of 
spots does not show the ratio of dwelling units 
with the given characteristic to the total number of 
dwelling units, and frequently this is of vital im- 
portance. Third, this method does not lend itself 
to depicting gradations of a factor such as the degree 
of disrepair nor to showing factors that may vary 
for each dwelling, such as rent. 

The so-called bloc\ data map is a device that over- 
comes some of the disadvantages of the spot map. 
These maps have been made for 142 of the 177 cities 
for which block by block data are available. A 
number of additional surveys are already under way. 

1 Works Progress Administration, Urban Housing, A Summary of Real 
Property Inventories (Washington, D. C, 1938). 



Written in the blank space in each block are a num- 
ber of different figures arranged in a definite order. 
Each figure represents a given characteristic for that 
block expressed either as an average of all dwelling 
units in the block or as a percentage of the total 
number of the dwelling units in the block. It is 
thus possible to make comparisons between numer- 
ous different factors in every block. Used in this 
manner, the block data map is a reference manual to 
be used for detailed analyses of single blocks or for 
comparisons between adjacent blocks. In addition, 
the blocks may be colored on the basis of any single 
factor, such as rent, without obscuring the detailed 
figures. Such a colored map gives a striking picture 
of the pattern of the city as a whole with respect to 
this one factor. A series of colored maps also may 
be prepared, showing the pattern for each separate 
factor. 

When the data gathered in the first real property 
surveys, made in 1934, were tabulated, a variety of 
characteristics of dwelling units were available for 
the first time which could be used in the measure- 
ment of residential neighborhoods. Of the 30 items 
for which data were collected, 8 were selected for 
use in block data maps as being the factors most 
pertinent in revealing housing conditions. The 8 
factors chosen were arrayed in each block of the 
block data maps in the following order from top to 
bottom: 

1. Average rental for the block. 

2. Total number of residential structures in the block. 

3. Percentage of the total number of residential structures 
in the block less than 15 years old. 

4. Percentage of the total number of dwelling units in the 
block that are owneroccupied. 

5. Percentage of the total number of residential structures 
in the block that need major repairs or that are unfit for 
occupancy. 

6. Percentage of the total number of structures in the block 
that are used for commercial purposes. 

7. Percentage of the total number of dwelling units in the 
block that have no private bath. 

8. Percentage of the total number of persons living in the 
block that are of a race other than white. 

These eight factors are shown in each of over 
150,000 blocks in the 142 cities for which block 
data maps have been made. As an example, a 
reproduction of a section of the block data map of 
Richmond, Va., is shown in figure 10. 

The use of such block data maps implies that the 
figures used afford a true picture of the character- 



28 



CONDITION OF STRUCTURES 
CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA 
1934 




o STRUCTURES NEEDING MINOR REPAIRS 
. STRUCTURES NEEDING MAJOR REPAIRS 
+ STRUCTURES UNFIT FOR USE 



SOURCE: U. S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

CHARLESTON REAL PROPERTY INVENTORY. 1934 



29 



FIGURE lO 



BLOCK DATA MAP 
SECTION OF RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 1934 




SOURCE 



U S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 
RICHMOND REAL PROPERTY INVENTORY, 1934 



FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION 
DIVISION OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS 



30 



istics represented. Percentage figures, used for the 
last six items, give greater meaning to the several 
factors than absolute figures — for they simply 
denote the relative existence or nonexistence of a 
characteristic. Certainly, the number of residential 
structures less than 15 years of age, or the number 
of owner-occupied dwelling units, or the number of 
residential structures in need of major repairs, has 
little significance as an absolute figure. But when 
expressed as a percentage, the relative condition of 
the entire block with respect to that factor is 
clearly brought out. The same is true of the num- 
ber of dwelling units lacking private baths or the 
number of persons of a race other than white in a 
given block. And the number of structures used 
for commercial purposes is also better stated as a 
percentage of all structures. The only absolute 
number shown on the block data map is the number 
of residential structures in each block — thus giving 
a direct tie-up with every other figure shown. 

It is the predominant condition of the block with 
respect to these factors that is important in de- 
termining its character. The existence of a certain 
proportion of buildings in a block requiring major 
repairs influences the value of other structures 
that are m good condition. The presence of a 
certain proportion of members of an inharmonious 
race in a block affects the characteristics of the entire 
block. As the percentage representation of a factor 
increases in a given block, more influence is brought 
to bear by that factor on the whole block. 

In the case of rent, the average figure for the block 
typifies the rentals for the entire block. Although 
it is known that every unit in some blocks that are 
wholly occupied by residential buildings of the 
same type will have rental values within a very 
narrow range, it is also known that blocks in neigh- 
borhoods with mixed types of structures will have 
rental values more greatly diversified. In only rare 
and isolated instances will the average rental for a 
block be merely an average of extremes. But the 
degree of the range of rents of dwelling units within 
the block about the average figure typifying the 
rentals for the entire block — the extent of the 
homogeneity or heterogeneity of the block with 
respect to rentals — is important in the use of aver- 
age rent as a housing characteristic. That it is a 
measure is self-evident from the lack of complete 
homogeneity or heterogeneity in any city. That 



blocks do have different average rents is, in itself, 
indicative — but the "goodness of the fit" 11 is de- 
pendent upon the degree of cluster about the 
average. 

If, to eliminate minor variations, rents are grouped 
in $5 or $10 classes, extreme homogeneity with 
respect to rentals in a block may be deemed to exist 
for the purpose of this monograph if 100 percent of 
the rental units in the block fall into the same group 
that contains the average rent. For example, this 
would be true if the average rent of a block was $35 
a month and no dwelling unit in the block rented for 
less than $30 a month or over $39.99 a month. 

Conversely, extreme heterogeneity with respect to 
rentals in a block may be deemed to exist if an equal 
number of rental units m the block fall into each one 
of the rental groups. Thus, with 80 rental units in 
a block and 10 rental groups, this would be true if 8 
rental units fall into each of the rental groups. 

Between these two extremes, there are innumer- 
able gradations of homogeneous and heterogeneous 
blocks. The greater the percentage of rentals falling 
within the rental group containing the average, the 
more homogeneous would be the block. And the 
greater the percentage of rentals falling outside the 
rental group containing the average, the more hetero- 
geneous would be the block. 

As a demonstration of the degree of homogeneity, 
or cluster about the average rental, 10 percent of the 
residential blocks in Philadelphia, Pa., Washington, 
D. C, and Oakland, Calif., have been sampled, to- 
gether with all of the residential blocks in Gary, 
Ind., and Spartanburg, S. C. These five cities are 
representative of different types of American cities, 
they vary considerably in siz;e, and are scattered 
geographically. In all, the entire sample includes 
67,000 dwelling units in 3,200 blocks. The rental 
units within each block have been classified into 
rental groupings as follows: 

Less than $10 per month. 
$10 to $19.99 per month. 
$20 to $29.99 per month. 
$30 to $39.99 per month. 
$40 to $49.99 per month. 
$50 to $74.99 per month. 
$75 or more per month. 

The distribution of the classified groups within 
blocks grouped by average rentals of the blocks is 



31 



shown in figure 11 for each of the five cities. The 
rental groupings chosen are small enough, especially 
in the lower rental classes, to present evidence of 
the degree to which rents cluster about the average; 
and large enough to encompass the minutiae of 
detail encountered in dealing with large numbers 
of figures. The data available in the cities chosen 
include tenant-occupied and vacant units in Wash- 
ington, D. C, and Philadelphia, Pa.; the data for 
Oakland, Calif., Gary, Ind., and Spartanburg, S. C, 
include owner-occupied units as well as tenant- 
occupied and vacant units. 

The data for these five cities indicate that, while 
perfect homogeneity of all dwelling units within the 
range of any rental group is rare, the rents of dwell- 
ing units in blocks with similar average rents gener- 
ally tend to group closely about the average. The 
smallest proportion of rents is at an extreme from 
the average and the largest proportion is within the 
same grouping of rents as the average block rent. 
And, the groupings on either side of the grouping 
containing the average block rent contain most of 
the other rental units. In other words, homogeneity 
(rather than heterogeneity) is the rule rather than 
the exception. Two somewhat more objective 
tests 2 of the data of these five cities confirm this 
inference. 

Thus, the rents of individual dwelling units in the 
sample of American cities studied show a definite 
tendency to cluster around the average rent for the 
block. Relatively few blocks show extreme hetero- 
geneity; and, although most blocks have a diversity 
of rentals, the tendency toward homogeneity is the 

2 A computation of the statistical criterion eta, the correlation ratio (see 
Mills, Frederick C, Statistical Methods, revised edition, N. Y., Henry Holt & 
Co., 1938, pp. 413-423, inclusive), gives values for the five cities as follows: 

Spartanburg, S. C 0. 74 

Gary, Ind .77 

Oakland, Calif. . 79 

Washington, D. C .... 69 

Philadelphia, Pa . ... .70 

A second criterion of homogeneity is the coefficient Z derived in the analysis of 
variance. (See Mills, ch. XV, especially pp. 494 to 500, inclusive, and for a 
more extensive treatment see Fisher, R. A., Statistical Methods for Research 
Workers, Edinburgh, Oliver &r" Boyd, 6th ed., 1936.1 
The Z's for the five cities are given below: 

Spartanburg, S. C 1. 674 

Gary, Ind . 1. 531 

Oakland, Calif 1. 846 

Washington, D. C 1. 650 

Philadelphia, Pa 1. 418 

Since both the number of blocks and the number of dwelling units included 
in the analysis are large for each of the cities, these coefficients of the difference 
between the variation between groups and the variation within groups are 
considered significant in each instance. 



rule rather than the exception. Hence, for purposes 
of this monograph, it is assumed that the average 
block rent is not an average of extremes, but in most 
cases is the modal rent or the one most typical of the 
units in the block. 

Having demonstrated the representativeness of 
the data used in the construction of block data maps 
and noted their significance in measuring block by 
block gradations, we may proceed further with our 
analysis of residential neighborhoods. The 142 
cities for which block data maps have been made 
have been examined and a technique has been derived 
whereby the differences in residential areas in 
American cities may be more closely measured. 

The city that was at first a vague and nebulous 
quantity has been defined as to its external shape by 
maps of the settled area. Then the areas occupied 
by different types of land uses within the built-up 
section were segregated from each other, and the 
residential sections were separated from the com- 
mercial and industrial districts by means of land-use 
maps. The block was then selected as an appro- 
priate unit of measurement and the data tabulated 
in real-property surveys were found useful in block- 
by-block analysis of gradations of certain charac- 
teristics of neighborhoods when shown on block 
data maps. Still we have not found how the char- 
acteristics distribute themselves, for example, where 
the slums and the fashionable areas are located 
within the city structure. 

Although block data maps permit analysis of 
block by block gradations, they do not clearly 
portray the differences in residential areas on the 
basis of any single characteristic. They are most 
useful in detailed analyses of single blocks or for 
comparison between adjacent blocks. To circum- 
vent this difficulty, therefore, the technique has 
been refined to permit the analysis of the patterns 
of residential areas reflected by single characteristics. 
By this method a series of maps is made, each por- 
traying the block data for one of the factors graded 
by five or six class intervals. Different cross- 
hatchings are used to designate the several grada- 
tions of each characteristic. 

Since two factors — number of residential struc- 
tures and percentage of structures used for com- 
mercial purposes — have less significance in the 
analysis of residential areas than the percentage of 
dwelling units having no central heat or that are 



32 



FIGURE 1 1 



RENT* DISTRIBUTION WITHIN BLOCKS 
GROUPED** BY AVERAGE RENT OF BLOCK 



KEY - RENT DISTRIBUTION WITHIN EACH GROUP OF BLOCKS 

ll T BAR - LESS THAN $ IO 00 2»° BAR - $ 10 00 - $ 19 99 35° BAR $ 20.00 - $ 29 99 

4 IB BAR ■ $3000 -$ 39 99 5 IB BAR - $ 4000 - $ 49 99 6 IB BAR $ 50 00 - $ 74 99 

7 IB BAR - $75 00 ft OVER 



NOTE WIDTH OF BARS IN EACH GROUP DETERMINED BY SIZE OF CLASS INTERVAL - 

HEIGHT OF SIXTH B SEVENTH BAR REDUCED TO ACCOUNT FOR GREATER WIDTH 



AVERAGE MONTHLY 
RENT OF BLOCK 



ALL BLOCKS 



SPARTANBURG 


GARY 


OAKLAND 


WASHINGTON DC 


PHILADELPHIA 


TOTAL 






































L 


■^ 


g| 




L 




j^^_ 


Jl 


*H- 


_JL^ 


^L 


^^L_ 


12 3 15 6 7 


12 3 4 5 6 7 


12 3 4 5 6 7 


12 3 4 5 6 7 


12 3 4 5 6 7 


12 3 4 5 6 7 



LESS THAN $ 10.00 



s^ees 



$1000- $ 19 99 



F= t= J= 3f=IPIP 




































_ 














1 


■ 


1 






40.00 - $ 49.99 




_jLh_ 


JLft_ 


_jL«__ 


_.^M_ 


-JHhBL— 



$ 75 00 OR MORE 

















































_ 






_ 




00-$ 74.99 




__^^^ — _ 


___Jh^™L 


JHLm 


_ .jJL^ 


_JL 









































H 






|M| 




NONE 


■ 




^J 




B 


12 3 4 5 6 7 


12 3 4 5 6 7 


12 3 4 5 6 7 


12 3 4 5 6 7 


12 3 456 7 


12 3 4 5 6 7 



Brents i monthly) are for all tenant -occupied and vacant units (plus 

OWNER - OCCUPIED UNITS IN PHILADELPHIA AND WASHINGTON) 

**EACH RENT CROUP CONTAINS ALL RENTS IN THOSE BLOCKS WITH AN 
AVERAGE RENT FALLING WITHIN THAT GROUP. 



SOURCE: CIVIL WORKS ADMINISTRATION, REAL PROPERTY 

INVENTORY FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 1934 
AND PHILADELPHIA REAL PROPERTY SURVEY, 1934 
WORKS PROGRESS ADMINISTRATION, REAL PROPERTY 
SURVEYS FOR GARY, OAKLAND AND SPARTANBURG, 
1935 - 1936 



FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION 
DIVISION OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS 



33 



overcrowded, the two latter characteristics will be 
used. Also, the percentage of residential structures 
35 years old and over in each block is of more signifi- 
cance for our analysis than those less than 15 years 
of age. Together with the other factors used on 
block data maps — the eight block characteristics 
throwing most light upon residential areas with 
respect to one another are : ;i 

1 . Average rental for the block. 

2. Percentage of residential structures that are 35 years old 
and over. 

3. Percentage of dwelling units that are owner-occupied. 

4. Percentage of residential structures in need of major 
repairs or unfit for occupancy. 

5. Percentage of dwelling units that have no private bath. 

6. Percentage of persons that are of a race other than white. 
7- Percentage of dwelling units having no central heat. 

8. Percentage of dwelling units that are overcrowded. 

Taking each of these block factors one at a time 
and using a different type of cross-hatching for each 
of the five or six class intervals into which each 
factor is divided, the relative gradations of resi- 
dential neighborhoods thus mapped are clearly 
identified. Since reproduction of eight such maps 
for each of the 142 cities — or even a number of 
them — is not feasible here, we will content our- 
selves with demonstrating the technique of making 
patterns for residential neighborhoods by using as 
illustrations on following pages, the maps for the 
city of Richmond, Va. The pattern for each factor 
will be discussed separately. Only residential struc- 
tures are included in the maps to be discussed in the 
remainder of this chapter; commercial and business 
buildings are excluded entirely, except where they 
are partially used for residential purposes. 

The Pattern of Average Rents 

The first step in sorting out the different kinds of 
residential areas in a city is to examine the patterns 
formed by average block rentals of dwelling units. 
The analyst of city structure should locate on the 
map the blocks of highest and lowest average rental 
in the city and then note the gradations, block by 
block, between these two poles. In figure 12, 
average block rents in the city of Richmond, Va., 
have been classified into five groups and the cross- 
hatching for each block indicates the rental group 
in which that block falls. 



3 Sec appendix, pp. 125-128 for definitions. 



An examination of the map indicates that the 
highest rental blocks tend to be concentrated along 
two main axial lines Monument Avenue and 
Chamberlayne Avenue -running respectively north- 
west and north to the periphery of the city. The 
lowest rental blocks curve around the valleys and 
extend through the central, southern, and south- 
eastern portions of the city. From the highest 
rental blocks, there is gradation downward, with 
blocks in the rental range of $30 to $49.99 a month 
tending to form a border on each side of the blocks 
where the average rent of dwelling units is $50 a 
month or more. There is no compact or completely 
concentrated area of blocks whose dwelling units 
are in the highest rental group, but there is an inter- 
mingling of blocks that have as much as $20 dif- 
ference in average rentals. However, the blocks with 
highest average rent for dwelling units tend to be 
located along definite axial lines in certain sections 
of the city, and they are not scattered at random 
through all parts of the city. The pattern of average 
rents by blocks, however, can only be indicated 
clearly with all its gradations when the data are 
available for every block. 

The pattern of rent areas, while irregular, indicates 
that the dwelling units for which the highest rent 
is paid tend to cluster along certain axes or around 
a certain pole in one or more sections of the city. 
Rent, however, is only one factor measuring the 
quality of housing. 

The Pattern of the Age of Structures 

Are the oldest and newest buildings in a city mixed 
together in the same blocks, or are the newest struc- 
tures segregated in certain parts of the city and the 
oldest in other parts? There are several types of 
maps showing the age of structures in a city. On one 
form of map, data may be used to indicate the loca- 
tion of new structures erected in a recent period. 
Such a map for Detroit, showing the new buildings 
for which building permits were granted in the first 
4 months of 1937, is shown in the Map Supplement 
in figure 1. It reveals that all the new construction 
was on the periphery of the city. 

Another type of map, showing the actual age of 
structures in Washington, D. O, is shown in the 
Map Supplement in figure 2. The medians indi- 
cating age of structures in the different blocks are 



34 



FIGURE 12 



PATTERN OF RESIDENTIAL RENTS 
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 1934 



LEGEND 

AVERAGE RENT PER MONTH BY BLOCK 
$999 AND LESS 
$1000 TO $1999 
$20 00 TO $2999 
$3000 TO $4999 
$5000 OR MORE 

SHf. i 







SOURCE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

RICHMOND REAL PROPERTY INVENTORY. 1934 



FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION 
DIVISION OF ECONOMICS 8 STATISTICS 



35 



FIGURE 13 

PATTERN OF RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES 35 YEARS OLD & OVER 

RICHMOND. VIRGINIA 1934 



LEGEND 

AGE OF STRUCTURES 
35 YEARS AND OVER BY B LOCKS 

50 PER CENT a OVER HH 




SOURCE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

RICHMOND REAL PROPERTY INVENTORY, 1931 



36 



FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION 
DIVISION OF ECONOMICS a STATISTICS 



classified in this map into several age groups and 
designated by different cross hatchings. Thus, the 
pattern of the age of structures in Washington, 
D. C, portrays a central nucleus, in which the 
buildings are 30 years old or more, in the George- 
town section and the entire adjacent area bounded 
by Florida Avenue, the Potomac and Anacostia 
Rivers. The newer sections, containing blocks 
with a median building age of less than 15 years, 
fill in the areas in the northwest and northeast 
quadrants between nuclei of blocks occupied by 
older structures. The latter, of course, reflect the 
growth of the older settled area which had expanded 
in small detached settlements. 

The pattern of the age of structures is also shown 
by another type of map for Richmond in figure 13. 
Here, the blocks have been classified in groups 
according to the percentage of structures in the 
blocks that are 35 years old or more. This map 
clearly portrays that blocks with 80 percent or 
more of the structures 35 years old or more at the 
time of the survey were concentrated in the central, 
southern, and southeastern sections. These were 
the very areas where rents were lowest. As one 
goes toward the periphery of the city along Cham- 
berlayne and Monument Avenues, to the north 
and northwest, the percentage of aged structures in 
the blocks rapidly decreases and numerous blocks 
are found with no structures 35 years old or more. 
The proportion of such structures in the several 
rental groups is shown in table III. 

Table III. — -Proportion of Residential Structures 35 
Years Old and Over in Each Rental Group 

Richmond, Va., 1934 

T ,, , , , . i .11 The percentage of resi- 

In all blocks with average monthly derlt J structures 35 

rent or years old and over was — 

Less than $10 60.8 

$10 to $19.99 55.0 

$20 to $29.99 26.4 

$30 to $49.99 7-6 

$50 or more 8.3 

Entire city 36.3 

Source: U. S. Department of Commerce, Richmond Real Property Inventory, 
1934. 

The Pattern of Owner Occupancy 

Is the extent of home ownership the same in all 
parts of the city, or is the proportion of owned 



homes greater in some areas than in others? The 
pattern of owner-occupied dwelling units in Rich- 
mond, shown in figure 14, clearly portrays a higher 
percentage of owner-occupied homes on the periph- 
ery than in the center of the city. While there 
are many blocks in areas adjacent to the central 
business district in which less than 10 percent of 
the dwelling units were owner-occupied at the time 
of the survey, there are large sections in the north 
in which home ownership ranged from 70 percent 
to 100 percent. Sections on the northwestern, 
southwestern, and southern fringe of the city also 
contain a number of blocks in which owner-occupied 
units predominated. 

The percentage of owner-occupied units thus 
tends to increase as one goes from the center to the 
city limits. The greater number of two-family 
structures, dwellings over stores, lodging houses, 
and apartments near the central part of the city 
reduces the percentage of owner occupancy. In 
many such structures, however, the owner may 
live in one of the dwelling units. It is also true 
that the older dwelling units near the business 
center are occupied to a large extent by a tenant 
class that lacks the means or inclination to buy 
homes in areas that are either slums or border on 
blighted areas. Houses in such old areas are fre- 
quently regarded as places of temporary abode. 
When a family accumulates the funds to make a 
down payment on a house, it usually desires to 
move into a newer neighborhood farther from the 
business center. In Richmond, some individuals 
have made it a business to own and rent the older 
houses, and one person may own and rent a con- 
siderable number of such properties. 

As indicated in figure 12, the residences in the 
central part of Richmond tend to rent for less on the 
average than those on the periphery. There is like- 
wise a tendency for the percentage of owner occu- 
pancy to increase as the average rent of the dwelling 
units in the block increases. Thus, for the entire 
city, only 17-4 percent of the dwelling units were 
owner occupied, at the time of the survey, in blocks 
where the average rent was less than $10 a month. 
As average rent increases by class intervals, the pro- 
portion of owner-occupied dwelling units also in- 
creases as shown in table IV. 



37 



FIGURE 14 

PATTERN OF OWNER OCCUPANCY 
RICHMOND. VIRGINIA 1934 



LEGEND 
DWELLING UNITS OWNER OCCUPIED 




m 

jfa ' '>V' • 



SOURCE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

RICHMOND REAL PROPERTY INVENTORY, 1934 



38 



Table IV. Proportion of Owner-Occupied Dwelling 
Units in Each Rental Group 

Richmond, V;i„ 1934 

.,,,,, . , , , The percentage of 

In all blocks with average monthly owner'Occupied 

rent of — dwelling units was — 

Less than $10 17.4 

$10 to $19.99 25.3 

$20 to $2Q.99 37- 5 

$30 to $49.99 43. 3 

$50 or more 58. 7 

Entire city 33. 7 

Source: U. S. Department ot Commerce, Richmond Real Property Inventory, 
1934. 

The Pattern of the Condition of Structures 

One of the most important measures of the quality 
of housing is the percentage of structures in a block 
that are m need of major repairs or that are unfit for 
use. 4 Are such buildings in poor condition scattered 
at random through the city, or are they concentrated 
in certain areas? The pattern of the condition of 
residential structures in Richmond, Va., is shown in 
figure 15. 

The map clearly illustrates that the blocks in which 
50 percent or more of the structures were in need of 
major repairs or were unfit for use at the time of the 
survey were concentrated in a number of clusters in 
the valleys and on low ground along the James River 
in the central, southern, and southeastern portions of 
the city. As we have seen, these are predominantly 
low-rent areas. Bordering the clusters of blocks 
in which over half of the structures were in poor 
condition at that time are blocks in which 25 to 49 
percent of the buildings needed major repairs or 
were unfit for occupancy. There is a decline in the 
proportion of houses in a poor state of repair as one 
goes northward or northwestward from the center 
of the city. 

In the highest rental areas, there are only a few 
scattered blocks that had an appreciable percentage 
of structures in poor condition. Thus buildings re- 
quiring structural repairs tend to be concentrated in 
low-rental areas. In Richmond in 1934, 43.8 per- 
cent of the dwelling units renting for less than $10 
a month required major repairs, and 6.8 percent of 
the dwelling units in that lowest rental category 
were unfit for use. Table V below indicates the 
proportion of structures in poor condition in the 
several rental groups. 

* See appendix for definition. 



Table V. — Proportion of Structures in Poor Condition 
in Each Rental Group 

Richmond, Va., 1934 

t ii -.i i u.\ t i i The percentage of struc 

In all blocks with average monthly (ures needmg major 

rent Ol repairs or unfit for use was— 

Less than $10 50.6 

$10 to $19.99 28.6 

$20 to $29.99 8.6 

$30 to $49.99 2. 8 

$50 or more 1. 5 

Entire city 19. 5 

Source: U. S. Department of Commerce, Richmond Real Property Inventory, 
1934. 

The evidence shown in the table clearly indicates 
that structures in need of major repairs or unfit for 
habitation are few and far between in blocks having 
average rents of $20 monthly or more and that the 
proportion rapidly diminishes as the rental scale 
ascends. Hence, the pattern of blocks on the basis 
of the physical condition of houses shows chiefly the 
gradations within the lower rental areas. The 
pattern does not show adequately the gradations in 
the character of areas in which the average rent of 
dwelling units is over $20 a month. 

The Pattern of Dwelling Units Having No 
Private Bath 

Whether or not a dwelling unit has a private bath 
is another measure of significance relating to the 
quality of housing. The pattern of dwelling units 
lacking this modern convenience at the time of the 
survey is shown for Richmond, Va., in figure 16. 
As in previous maps of this city, the several types 
of cross hatching reflect the predominance of the 
factor being measured. 

In Richmond, most of the dwelling units which 
lacked private baths in 1934 were concentrated in 
those same valleys and low-lying areas in the central, 
southern, and southeastern portions of the city in 
which average rents were the lowest. There were 
a number of clusters of blocks in which none of the 
houses had private baths, surrounded by a fringe of 
blocks in which a greater proportion possessed 
private baths. There were also a large number of 
blocks in which at least 60 percent of the dwelling 
units had private baths. 

The map shows, however, an abrupt transition 
between these blocks in which some of the homes 
lacked a private bath and blocks in which all of the 



39 



FIGURE 15 



PATTERN OF RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES IN POOR CONDITION 

RICHMOND. VIRGINIA 1934 



LEGEND 
CONDITION OF STRUCTURE 

PERCENTAGE NEEDING MAJOR REPAIRS 
OR UNFIT FOR USE BY BLOCKS 

1% TO 9% 




SOURCE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

RICHMOND REAL PROPERTY INVENTORY, 1934 



FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION 
DIVISION OF ECONOMICS 8 STATISTICS 



40 



FIGURE 16 



PATTERN OF DWELLING UNITS HAVING NO PRIVATE BATHS 



RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 1934 




SOURCE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

RICHMOND REAL PROPERTY INVENTORY, 1934 



FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION 
DIVISION OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS 



41 



dwelling units possessed a bath. That a pattern 
based on the presence or the lack of a private bath 
tends to separate the lowest rental areas or the most 
inferior types of houses from all other residential 
areas is corroborated by table VI. 

Table VI. — Proportion of Dwelling Units Without 
Private Bath in Each Rental Group 

Richmond, Va., 1934 

i n i i i -«.l .ii The percentage of 

In all blocks with average monthly dwelhn l g units wlthout 

rent of private bath was — 

Less than $10 89.6 

$10 to $19.99 48.4 

$20 to $29.99 8.2 

$30 to $49.99 1.0 

$50 or more 3 

Entire city 30. 3 

Source: U. S. Department of Commerce, Richmond Real Property Inventory, 
1934. 

The table indicates that the percentage of homes 
lacking this modern convenience is large in blocks 
with rents averaging below $20 per month, and 
drops off sharply in blocks with higher average 
rentals. Patterns based on this feature fail, therefore, 
to show gradations in housing quality above that 
rental level. 

The Pattern of Areas Occupied by Persons 
of a Race Other Than White 

The pattern of nonwhite residential areas in Rich- 
mond is essentially a pattern of areas occupied by 
Negroes. The extent to which Negroes are con' 
centrated in segregated areas in American cities 
will be discussed in detail in chapter V. 

Instead of a diffusion of Negroes throughout Rich- 
mond, figure 17 shows that at the time of the survey 
there were six or seven concentrated Negro areas. 
Many large sectors of the city had an entire absence 
of nonwhite persons, particularly in the high rent 
neighborhoods. In most of the Negro areas in Rich- 
mond, the dwelling units of a majority of the blocks 
were entirely occupied by Negroes. In most of the 
remaining blocks, from 40 to 99 percent of the resi- 
dents were of the colored race. 

The pattern of Negro areas shown on the map thus 
reveals a dense concentration of colored persons in a 
few segregated sections, and does not portray a 
gradual thinning out in the percentage of Negroes 
from the heart of a colored area to a border line 
fringe of blocks occupied by both white and colored 



persons. While there are some mixed racial blocks 
on the edges of the blocks entirely occupied by 
Negroes, in most of the areas there is an abrupt 
transition from blocks occupied by Negroes to those 
in which the entire population is white. 

These concentrated Negro areas in Richmond 
tend to fall in those same central, southern, and 
southeastern sections of the city where, as we have 
seen, rents are lowest, buildings are oldest and in 
the poorest condition, and the largest percentage of 
dwelling units lack private baths. In following 
pages we shall also see that the sections occupied by 
the colored race generally lack central heat and are 
overcrowded. The relationship of rental groups to 
colored occupancy is evidenced by table VII. 

Table VII. Proportion of Colored Occupants in Each Rental 

Group 

Richmond, Va., 1934 

In all blocks with average monthly The percentage „/ colored 
rent or occupants was — 

Less than $10 72. 7 

$10 to $19.99 45.8 

$20 to $29.99 6. 7 

$30 to $49.99 .2 

$50 or more 

Entire city 26. 6 

Source: LI. S. Department of Commerce. Richmond Real Property Inven- 
tory, 1934. 

The dwelling units in the lower rental brackets 
thus were predominantly occupied by Negroes in 
1934. As the average block rental increases, the 
proportion of colored occupancy decreases rapidly. 

The Pattern of Dwelling Units Lacking 
Central Heat 

The factor of central heat, as a measure of the 
quality of housing, is of significance chiefly in north- 
ern cities. As one travels southward in the United 
States, central heating becomes less of a necessity 
and, in the southern tier of States, becomes a rarity. 
Richmond, for which the pattern is shown in figure 
18, is not too far south to warrant the expense of 
central heating installations in structures of average 
quality. 

The pattern of blocks in Richmond in which most 
of the structures lack central heat includes most of 
the blocks in which there are few private baths, 
but it extends beyond this area on all sides. In 
Richmond, Va., the dividing line between homes 



42 



FIGURE 17 

PATTERN OF NON - WHITE POPULATION 
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 1934 



LEGEND 



POPULATION OTHER THAN WHITE 
PERCENTAGE BY BLOCKS 




SOURCE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

RICHMOND REAL PROPERTY INVENTORY, 1934 



103253— 39- 



43 



possessing central heat and those lacking it in 1934 
came at the point where dwelling units rented for 
$30 a month or more. Thus, of the dwelling units 
renting from $20 to $29.99 a month, only 8.2 per- 
cent lacked private baths but 62.3 percent had no 
central heat. 

The percentage of dwelling units that lacked 
central heat in the several rental groups is shown in 
table VIII. 

Table VIII. Proportion of Dwelling Units Lacking 
Central Heat in Each Rental Group 

Richmond, Va., 1934 

In all blocks with average monthly dwelLTunTTackmg 
rent of — central heat was — 

Less than $10 97. 6 

$10 to $19.99 94.5 

$20 to $29.99 62.3 

$30 to $49.99 8.2 

$50 or more 2. 3 

Entire city 60. 9 

Source: U. S. Department of Commerce, Richmond Rea! Property Invert- 
tory, 1934. 

The pattern of blocks in which a majority of the 
dwelling units lack central heat thus serves to 
delineate the areas in which average rents are 
below a certain figure, but it fails to measure accu- 
rately the gradations above that level. 

The Pattern of Overcrowded Dwelling Units 

The eighth measure of the quality of housing 
taken into consideration in this monograph is the 
percentage of dwelling units in each block that are 
overcrowded. 5 Are overcrowded homes scattered 
at random throughout the residential sections of a 
city? Or do they tend to be concentrated in 
definite areas? The pattern of overcrowded dwell' 
ing units in Richmond at the time of the survey is 
shown in figure 19. 

The map reveals that the same central, southern, 
and southeastern sections of the city in which other 
housing characteristics were poor also suffered 
from the greatest overcrowding. The blocks in 
which 40 percent or more of the dwelling units 
had more than one person to the room were located 
in the same valleys and low lands where rents were 
lowest. The map also portrays the declining pro- 
portion of overcrowded dwelling units as one 
travels from the center of the cluster of overcrowded 
blocks toward the blocks with higher rentals. 



The relative proportion of dwelling units in the 
several different rental groups that were over- 
crowded is shown in table IX. 

Table IX. Proportion of Overcrowded Dwelling 
Units in Each Rental Group 

Richmond, Va., 1934 

The percentage of over- 
crowded dwelling 
units was — 

In all blocks with average monthly 

rent of — 

Less than $10 35.2 

$10 to $19.99 27.1 

$20 to $29.99 15.9 

$30 to $49.99 5.7 

$50 or more 2.9 

Entire city 18.6 

Source: U. S. Department of Commerce, Richmond Real Property Inventory, 
1934. 

The Location of Types of Residential 
Neighborhoods 

Throughout this monograph, step by step, we 
have developed a technique for use in the analysis 
of the structure of residential neighborhoods in any 
American city. For purposes of illustration, maps 
of the city of Richmond, Va., have been used for 
the more refined steps in this chapter. The same 
technique may be applied, however, to 177 cities 
for which data by blocks have been made available 
in real property surveys. 

In brief, according to the technique developed in 
this chapter, average block data are tabulated for 
eight or more selected factors significant of the qual- 
ity of housing. A map is then prepared for each 
one of the selected factors. Each map shows the 
gradations, by five or six class intervals, block by 
block for the factor portrayed. The entire series of 
maps shows the patterns of residential neighbor- 
hoods and enables one to see the structure of resi- 
dential areas on the basis of any single characteristic. 

Such maps, presenting the gradations of different 
housing factors block by block, show that there is 
not an indiscriminate mixture of homes with varying 
characteristics in every part of the city. They do 
reveal a definite series of patterns according to 
which dwelling units that are similar with respect 
to a given factor tend to be concentrated in certain 
areas. Furthermore, it is found that a number of 
these characteristics are associated together and 

8 See appendix, pp. 125-128, for definition. 



44 



FIGURE 18 

PATTERN OF DWELLING UNITS HAVING NO CENTRAL HEAT 
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 1934 



LEGEND 
DWELLING UNITS HAVING NO CENTRAL HEAT 
1% TO 19% 




\ ,K'W ; \ V -- Ji 



SOURCE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

RICHMOND REAL PROPERTY INVENTORY, 1934 



FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION 
DIVISION OF ECONOMICS 8 STATISTICS 



45 



FIGURE 19 

PATTERN OF OVERCROWDED DWELLING UNITS 
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 1934 



LEGEND 
DWELLING UNITS OVERCROWDED 
1% TO 9% 
10% TO 19% 
20% TO 29% 
30% TO 39% 
40% OR MORE 




SOURCE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

RICHMOND HCtL PROPERTY INVCNTORf. 1934 



FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION 
DIVISION OF ECONOMICS a STATISTICS 



46 



THE COINCIDENCE OF FACTORS INDICATIVE OF POOR HOUSING 

RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 
1934 



FIGURE 


20 


FIGURE 


21 


FIGURE 


22 


FIGURE 


23 


FIGURE 


24 




LEGEND 



AVERAGE RENT LEb^ THAN 
15 DOLLARS A MONTh 



^SONDITION OF STRUCTURE, 25% 
^ND OVER NEED MAJOR REPAIRS 
UNFIT FOR USE 

A6E OF BUILDINGS, 75% AND OVER 
H/foRE THAN 35 YEARS OLD 



RACE OTHER THAN WHITE 
50% AND OVER 



COMBINATION OF FOUR FACTORS 
ABOVE 




^1 



J 



SOURCE: U S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

RICHMOND REAL PROPERTY INVENTORY, 1934 



FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION 
DIVISION OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS 



COMBINATION OF 
ALL 4 FACTORS 



RACE 



AGE 



CONDITION 



RENT 



47 



FIGURE 19 

PATTERN OF OVERCROWDED DWELLING UNITS 
RICHMOND. VIRGINIA 1934 



LEGEND 




DWELLING UNITS OVERCROWDED 



SOURCE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

RICHMOND RCtL PROPERTr INVENTORY. 1934 






46 



THE COINCIDENCE OF FACTORS INDICATIVE OF POOR HOUSING 

RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 
1934 



FIGURE 


20 


FIGURE 


21 


FIGURE 


22 


FIGURE 


23 



"I 



LEGEND 



AVERAGE RENT LESS THAN f& 
15 DOLLARS A MONTH 



50N0ITI0N OF STRUCTURE, 25% 
^ND OVER NEEO MAJOR REPAIRS 
UNFIT FOR USE 

A6E OF BUILDINGS, 75% AND OVER 
MbRE THAN 35 YEARS OLD 



RACE OTHER THAN WHITE 
50% AND OVER 







S 



V 



SOURCE U S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

RICHMOND REAL PROPERTY INVENTORY ,1934 



FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION 
DIVISION OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS 



RACE 



AGE 



CONDITION 



RENT 



47 



FIGURE 19 

PATTERN OF OVERCROWDED DWELLING UNITS 
RICHMOND. VIRGINIA 1934 



LEGEND 




DWELLING UNITS OVERCROWDED 
1% TO 9% 
10% TO 19% iiffifel 

20% TO 29% 
30% TO 39% 
40% OR MORE 



SOURCE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

RICHMOND REAL PROPERTr INVENTORY. 1934 



30AR 



^rQE^QolXAkSLlSMOO 



46 



THE COINCIDENCE OF FACTORS INDICATIVE OF POOR HOUSING 

RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 
1934 



FIGURE 


20 


FIGURE 


2i 


FIGURE 


22 



~l 



LEGEND 



AVERAGE RENT LESS THAN 
15 DOLLARS A MONTH 



CONDITION OF STRUCTURE, 25% 
AND OVER NEEO MAJOR REPAIRS 
UNFIT FOR USE 

A&E OF BUILDINGS, 75% AND OVER 
MfORE THAN 35 YEARS OLD 




SOURCE U S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

RICHMOND REAL PROPERTY INVENTORY. 1934 



FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION 
DIVISION OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS 



AGE 



CONDITION 



RENT 



47 



FIGURE 19 

PATTERN OF OVERCROWDED DWELLING UNITS 
RICHMOND. VIRGINIA 1934 




SOURCE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

RICHMOND REAL PROPERTY INVENTORY. 1934 



3DA 

46 



30AH 






THE COINCIDENCE OF FACTORS INDICATIVE OF POOR HOUSING 

RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 
1934 



FIGURE 20 



FIGURE 2i 



LEGEND 



AVERAGE RENT LESS THAN 
15 DOLLARS A MONTH 



\^-$ONDITION OF STRUCTURE, 25% 
.' AND OVER NEED MAJOR REPAIRS 
\ OP UNFIT FOR USE 




m 



SOURCE U S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

RICHMOND REAL PROPERTY INVENTORY, 1934 



FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION 
DIVISION OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS 



CONDITION 



RENT 



47 



FIGURE 19 

PATTERN OF OVERCROWDED DWELLING UNITS 
RICHMOND. VIRGINIA 1934 



LEGEND 




DWELLING UNITS OVERCROWDED 
1% TO 9% 
10% TO 19% 
20% TO 29% 
30% TO 39% 
40% OR MORE 



















ss«»~ as 










TT 



"TCT^3TT^OTaiviQar 

3fl0fT3£^ C0N T s 8 _fJ4 TC! 



SOURCE DEPARTMENT OP COMMERCE 

RICHMOND REAL PROPERTY INVENTQRy\^/Q | T I Q M 00 



30A 
46 



30AF1 



THE COINCIDENCE OF FACTORS INDICATIVE OF POOR HOUSING 

RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 
1934 



FIGURE 20 



LEGEND 



AVERAGE RENT LESS THAN 
15 DOLLARS A MONTH 




SOURCE U S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

RICHMOND REAL PROPERTY INVENTORY, 1934 



FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION 
DIVISION OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS 



47 



RENT 



end to fall in the same general areas of the city . 
This brings us to the next step in our analysis of the 
structure of residential areas in American cities. 

Inquiries into the structure of a city usually have 
the location of some specific area or areas as their 
main objective. In some instances it may be desired 
to locate the worst slum areas; in others the objective 
may be to locate the best residential neighborhoods. 
Between these two extremes, there are numerous pos- 
sibilities of specific analysis according to the combi- 
nation of the characteristics chosen as the guide- 
posts to the residential pattern desired. In order to 
bring out at a glance the areas in which a concentra- 
tion of the desired housing facilities exist, a tech- 
nique has been devised for superimposing a series 
of patterns on each other. 

Continuing to use Richmond for illustrative pur- 
poses, we shall assume that it is desired to ascer- 
tain the areas where the worst housing conditions 
prevail. The series of maps on previous pages 
showed several different gradations for a number of 
factors pertinent to housing. Choosing a few of the 
most pertinent characteristics, a series of transparent 
maps is made — each one portraying (for our present 
purpose) only the area in which the existing con- 
dition with respect to the particular factor mapped 
is most pronounced. Thus, it is necessary to choose 
arbitrary limits for the factors chosen. The block 
factors and limits selected for Richmond are shown 
below. 

Bloc\ factors Factor limits 

Average monthly rent Less than $15. 

Age of structures 75 percent or more 35 years 

and over. 
Condition of structures 25 percent or more in poor 

condition. 
Other than white occupancy . 50 percent or more nonwhite 

occupancy. 



The blocks with these characteristics are solidly 
blocked in on transparent maps as portrayed in 
figures 20, 21, 22, and 23, respectively. The result- 
ant picture of the areas where the worst housing 
conditions are located is shown in figure 24 areas 
in which all four of the above factors, as can be seen 
through the transparencies, coincide in the same 
blocks. Figure 24 clearly shows that the areas 
possessing all four of the limited characteristics fall 
in the central, southern, and southeastern sections 
of Richmond. It is of interest to note that none of 
the blocks falling in the categories selected falls in 
the northern and northwestern districts — the high 
rent areas of Richmond. 

This procedure is easily flexible — the area finally 
delineated will depend on the factors and the limits 
chosen by the investigator. In other cities, a 
different choice of factors might be advisable — 
other than white occupancy, for example, is a char- 
acteristic which may be used with justification only 
in southern cities as a measure of the poorest hous- 
ing conditions. In northern cities, the worst slums 
are frequently occupied by whites, and some cities 
have a relatively small Negro population. Also, 
different limits may be desired by the investigator — ■ 
in some cases both an upper and a lower limit for 
each factor will better fit the purpose of the study. 
Less than four, or more than four, factors may be 
desired — but an increasing number of transparen- 
cies will eventually make the ultimate pattern diffi- 
cult to ascertain correctly. Thus, the choice of the 
pattern lies with the investigator, and types of 
residential neighborhoods may be clearly defined for 
each of the 177 cities for which block data are avail- 
able by the method of coincidence of indices here 
discussed. 



48 



Chapter IV 

An Alternative Technique in the Analysis 

of Residential Areas 



T„ 



.HE technique thus far developed for use in the 
analysis of residential areas in American cities is, of 
course, applicable only in those cities in which real 
property surveys have been conducted. The data 
compiled in those surveys are invaluable to analysts 
of urban residential areas. In the 5 years, 1934-38, 
surveys of real property have been made in 203 
cities, others are under way, and additional surveys 
are contemplated. To those desiring to analyze 
cities in which no surveys have been made, how- 
ever, the technique of analysis suggested in preced- 
ing pages is of academic interest only. Until the 
real property in such cities has been properly sur- 
veyed, analysts desirous of making intensive studies 
therein will operate under definite handicaps. 

But our purpose in this monograph is not to point 
out the obstacles to be overcome — analysts them- 
selves are only too well aware of their existence. It 
is, rather, to facilitate analyses of urban areas 
wherever they will be useful. For use in those 
cities in which the desired data have not been 
compiled, therefore, this chapter will endeavor 



to outline a suitable alternative technique of 
analysis. 

The running commentary accompanying the series 
of maps illustrative of the quality of housing in 
Richmond, Va., in the previous chapter is sugges- 
tive of a convenient analytic tool. It will be recalled 
that, as each characteristic of low quality housing 
in that city was examined, it was noted in passing 
that each factor indicative of adverse housing con- 
ditions tended to be concentrated in homes in low 
rent blocks. The greatest proportion of structures 
35 years old or more, of tenant occupancy, of dwell- 
ings in poor condition, of units lacking a private 
bath, of occupants of a race other than white, of 
units lacking central heat and of overcrowded dwell- 
ing units, were all shown to be in the blocks in 
which rents averaged less than $10 per month. As 
the average block rent increased, each of the factors 
enumerated became less prevalent. As an aid in 
comparison, the proportionate representation of 
each of the factors in each of the several rental 
groups has been brought together in table X. 



Table X. — Percentage Representation of Housing Factors in Each Rental Group 

Richmond, Va., 1934 



Average block rental 



Less than $10 
$10 to $19.99 
$20 to $29.99 
$30 to $49.99 
$50 or more . 
Entire city . . 



Structures 


Units tenant- 


Structures 


Units with- 


Nonwhite 


Units with- 


35 years old 
or more 


occupied 


in poor 
condition 


out private 
bath 


occupancy 


out central 
heat 


Percent 


Percent 


Percent 


Percent 


Percent 


Percent 


60.8 


82.6 


50.6 


89.6 


72.7 


97.6 


55.0 


74.7 


28.6 


48.4 


45.8 


94.5 


26.4 


62.5 


8.6 


8.2 


6.7 


62.3 


7.6 


56.7 


2.8 


1.0 


.2 


8.2 


8.3 


41.3 


1.5 


.3 





2.3 


36.3 


66.3 


19.5 


30.3 


26.6 


60.9 



Units over- 
crowded 



Percent 
35.2 
27. 1 
15.9 
5.7 
2.9 
18.6 



Source: U. S. Department of Commerce, Richmond Real Property Inventory, 1934. 



49 



As can be seen, in this city the transition for each 
of the factors from the lower rent groups to the higher 
rent groups is not smooth. There is a decrease in 
the proportion of each of the factors present in all the 
structures and units in each rent classification, but the 
rate of decrease is very uneven. Thus, the propor- 
tion of dwellings in poor condition, of units without 
a private bath, and of occupants of a race other than 
white, drops off most abruptly in the blocks average 
ing $20 per month or more when compared with 
those renting for less than $20 monthly. The sharp- 
est decrease in the proportion of units without central 
heat, and to lesser degree in the case of structures 35 
years old or more, occurs in passing to those blocks 
with average monthly rents of $30 or more. The pro- 
portion of overcrowded units within each rental 
group decreases more evenly than any of the factors 
just cited; and the transition of the ratio of tenant- 
occupancy, when ascending the rental scale, is of even 
greater regularity. 

The proportion of each of these factors present in 
the number of units or dwellings contained in any of 
the classifications of average block rents will, of 
course, vary from city to city. And the point in the 
rental scale where the decrease is greatest will also 
vary from one city to another. It will be noticed 
that in the case of Richmond, Va., the proportion of 
structures 35 years old or more is greater, rather than 
lesser, in the rent group containing blocks with aver- 
age rents of $50 and over than in the next lower rent 
class. This is a peculiarity that may also be found 
in other old cities in which the older inhabitants of 
the wealthier groups continue to live in and perhaps 
modernize their family homes. Local peculiarities in 
any city may be of sufficient influence to cause similar 
apparent nonconformance with relation to the trend 
of data for any particular factor when related to rent. 

Thus, there is evidence that one of the very factors 
used as indicative of low quality housing is itself a 
reflector of a number of other factors. Of the several 
block factors used in the suggested technique, only 
rent is an absolute figure. It is also an average. And 
it is the only characteristic used about which much 
information is available concerning the past, as well 
as the present. This latter attribute will be found 
highly useful in part II in the discussion of the growth 
of urban residential areas. 

Since low rent seems to be a reflector of adverse 
housing characteristics, let us explore the significance 



of rent generally and examine its relationship to other 
factors of measurement more closely. We are not 
concerned with theorizing in regard to rent as an 
economic concept, nor do we wish to indulge in a 
discussion as to how rent should enter into the valua- 
tion of real property, nor do we care to discuss the 
factors in the business cycle influencing increases or 
decreases in rent. We are only concerned with rea- 
sons for the gradations of rent which exist at any 
one time among the different residential areas of a 
city. 

Rent, in the sense we are considering it, is the price 
paid for the use of a structure for dwelling purposes. 
Rent is determined for each unit by innumerable con- 
siderations which have been weighed in the minds of 
both the owner and the tenant. And an existing 
contractual relationship between owner and tenant 
is a priori evidence that, at the time of agreement, 
the rent was acceptable to both parties. The owner, 
on the one hand, is attempting to get as high a rent 
as possible. The tenant, on the other hand, is at- 
tempting to pay as small a rent as possible. If the 
owner sets his rent too high in comparison with rents 
of other dwelling units of the same quality, he will 
have difficulty in finding a tenant willing to pay. If 
the tenant seeks a dwelling unit that is of higher 
quality than that which customarily prevails at the 
rent he is willing to pay, he will have difficulty in 
finding a suitable unit. In any city, there will be in- 
numerable gradations of rent for the different types 
of dwelling units it contains. 

But gradations of rent will be dependent, of course, 
upon the relative quality and attractiveness of the 
dwelling units in the surrounding area. Relative 
quality and attractiveness, in turn, are judged by in- 
numerable measurable and immeasurable factors. 
The presence or absence of each of these factors 
enters into all individual judgments. The peculiar 
combination of such factors in any dwelling unit 
serves as a guide to the rent it commands. If these 
factors form a combination of low quality and 
attractiveness, the rent will be correspondingly low. 
Throughout the rental scale, we will find different 
combinations of quality and attractiveness. The 
rents will be graded accordingly. 

The choice of any particular tenant will be limited, 
of course, to those units renting at or below the 
price he is .willing and able to pay. The smaller the 
rent, the more limited the choice, and the lower the 



50 



quality and attractiveness of the dwelling units 
which may be considered. His final selection will 
represent a nice mental balancing of all those men' 
surable and immensurable factors which, in his indi- 
vidual judgment, are considered of paramount im- 
portance. Such items as the age and condition of 
structures, the presence of modern conveniences, the 
character and race of other people in the community, 
the proximity to adverse influences, the closeness to 
stores, schools, churches, and clubs, all enter into 
individual judgments and are some of the factors 
influencing gradations in rent. 

The force of the impact of each of these character- 
istics, of course, varies. This was seen in the uneven 
transition from the lower rent groups to the higher 
rent groups, in table X, for each of the factors there 
used. The uneven variation in the force of impact 
upon rent is due to the nature of the characteristics 
themselves rather than to the peculiarity of the city 
used for purposes of illustration. If we examine the 
relative concentration of these forces in the blocks in 
each rental grouping, we will get a clearer picture of 
the force of the impact of those characteristics in 
blocks of different average rent. In order to examine 
them more closely, each factor will be discussed 
separately. We will continue to use Richmond, Va., 
for discussion purposes. 

Age of structures. — The pattern of the age of 
structures in cities depends primarily upon the 
results of each of the several building cycles through 
which the city has passed. In some periods, some 
cities may have grown little or not at all. In other 
periods, they may have grown extremely rapidly. 
Only a few cities show regular waves of growth 
which occur with every building cycle. Many old 
structures, especially in the more static towns, are 
being put to the same use today as when they were 
first put up. Ordinarily, however, in a growing city 
new building takes place on the outskirts of the city, 
and the older structures are occupied by people in 
lower income brackets or put to entirely different use. 
Successive transferences of occupancy to individuals 
in lower income groups may shift dwellings from the 
highest to the lowest rental brackets in a city. As 
the change takes place, the rental for the unit usually 
decreases because of lessening attractiveness of both 
the unit and the neighborhood. It is not necessarily 
true that older houses command lower rentals; but, 
all other things being equal, an older house will rent 



for less than a new house even though the character 
of the neighborhood is maintained. 

It may be expected, therefore, that the older 
houses in a city will be represented in every grada- 
tion of rent. Table XI shows, for each rental group, 
the proportion of blocks with different degrees of 
concentration of structures 35 years old or more in 
Richmond, Va., in 1934. Horizontally, the blocks 
in each rent group are classified by the degree of 
concentration of aged structures. Vertically, all 
blocks in the city containing dwelling units are 
separated into rental groups by the average block 
rent. 

Table XI. — Percent of Bloc\s With Different Degrees 
of Concentration of Structures 35 Tears Old or 
More 

Richmond, Va., 1934 





Number 


Percent distribution 


Average block 


Blocks 


Blocks 


Blocks 


Total 


rental 


of blocks 


with 


with 


with 


blocks 






no 


some 


all 


in 






aged 


aged 


aged 


rental 






structures 


structures 


structures 


group 






Percent 


Percent 


Percent 


Percent 


Less than $10 . . 


246 


17.1 


46.7 


36.2 


100.0 


$10 to $19.99. . 


712 


23.3 


57.7 


19.0 


100.0 


$20 to $29.99 . . . 


429 


59.4 


34.8 


5.8 


100.0 


$30 to $49.99 . . . 


459 


79.5 


17.4 


3. 1 


100.0 


$50 or more .... 


160 


83.1 


14. 1 


2.8 


100.0 


Entire city 


2,006 


47.9 


38.7 


13.4 


100.0 



Source: U. S. Department of Commerce, Richmond Real Property Inven- 
tory, 1934. 

The blocks with lowest rent at the time of the 
survey had relatively few blocks entirely free of 
buildings 35 years old or more. Conversely, very 
few blocks in the highest rent group were entirely 
covered with aged structures. Note that the pro- 
portion of blocks only partially covered also tended 
to decrease in similar fashion as the rental scale 
increased. There was not a definite segregation of 
every single one of the aged structures into the low 
rental groups, nor were the older buildings entirely 
absent in blocks with high average rents. There is, 
however, an indication of definite gradations of rent. 
High concentration of aged structures existed in 
blocks with low average rent, and concentration 
decreased gradually and was lowest in blocks with 
high average rent. Thus, we may say that the age 
of the structure is one of the factors reflected in rent 
through all gradations. 



51 



Tenant occupancy.- -There is no apparent reason 
why tenant occupancy should affect rent directly. 
Other considerations, such as cost of dwellings, 
degree of mobility of the working population, and 
whether structures are single- or multiple-family 
buildings, m turn determine the extent of tenant 
occupancy. Obviously, in areas covered by apart- 
ment buildings, there will be few owners — although 
in some instances apartments may be sold, like 
houses. As far as single-family dwellings are con- 
cerned, cost and mobility play an important part in 
the extent of tenant occupancy. For instance, per- 
sons in the lower rental groups cannot afford to 
purchase new homes with all modern conveniences 
in the best neighborhoods; so that, ordinarily, lower 
rental groups have a higher proportion of tenant 
occupants. As we ascend the rental scale, we will 
find, however, that the proportion of tenant occu- 
pants becomes less but does not reduce to z,ero. In 
every class, there are persons who for one reason or 
another desire to remain tenants. Tenant occu- 
pancy will naturally be less in the higher rental 
brackets — the relatively increasing immobility of 
occupations of the occupants induces them to buy 
rather than rent homes. 

Table XII. — Percent of Bloc\s With Different Degrees 
of Concentration of Tenant- Occupied Dwelling 
JJnits 

Richmond, Va., 1934 





Number 


Percent distribution 


Average block 


Blocks 


Blocks 


Blocks 


Total 


rental 


of blocks 


with 


with 


with 


blocks 






no 


some 


all 


in 






tenant 


tenant 


tenant 


rental 






occupancy 


occupancy 


occupancy 


group 






Percent 


Percent 


Percent 


Percent 


Less than $10. . 


246 


2.9 


70.7 


26 A 


100.0 


$10 to $19.99. . . 


712 


2.5 


86.2 


11.3 


100.0 


$20 to $29.99... 


429 


4.0 


89.5 


6.5 


100.0 


$30 to $49.99 . 


459 


9.8 


86.7 


3.5 


100.0 


$50 or more .... 


160 


27.5 


69.4 


3.1 


100.0 


Entire city 


2,006 


6.5 


83.8 


9.7 


100.0 



Source: U. S. Department of Commerce, Richmond Real Property Inventory.. 
1934. 

The proportion of blocks with different degrees of 
concentration of tenant occupancy in Richmond, 
Va., in 1934 is shown in table XII for each of the 
several rental groups. The proportion of blocks 
entirely occupied by tenants is largest in the lowest 
rental group. The highest rental group contains, 



proportionately, the greatest number of blocks with 
no tenants at all. Most blocks in every group are 
of mixed nature. 

As may be seen from the table, at the time of the 
survey there were relatively few blocks in the middle 
rental groups with either no tenant occupany or 
completely tenant occupied. If we break down 
the proportionate representation shown in the 
column labeled ""Blocks with some tenant occu- 
pancy,''' we find that 33.0 percent of the blocks in 
the $10 to $19.99 rental group had a tenant occu- 
pancy of between 60 and 79.9 percent. In the 
rental group $30 to $49.99, 27.8 percent of the 
blocks showed only 20 to 39.9 percent concentra- 
tion of tenant occupancy. In both groups, tenant 
concentration was lower in any other 20 percent 
interval on either side of the class interval quoted. 
In other words, as we ascend the rental scale, the 
blocks tend to show a lower concentration of ten- 
ant occupancy. Thus tenant occupany shows, as 
is also indicated by table X, a definite tendency 
to decrease as rent increases. As already indicated, 
however, it is not a direct reflector of housing con- 
ditions but of economic forces influencing the occu- 
pants and of the intensity of land use. As such, it 
does have a relationship to gradations of rent. 

Condition of dwellings. — All of the dwellings in a 
city were new at one period or another but, as time 
passes, every dwelling inevitably requires repairs. 
If dwellings are relatively new, necessary repairs 
are apt to be slight, and the owners lose little time 
in attending to them. As buildings grow older, 
repairs are apt to become more frequent and expen- 
sive — both individually and collectively. If an 
aged dwelling is occupied by persons in good cir- 
cumstances, such repairs will receive proper attention 
whether of major or minor character. If the area 
in which the dwelling is located has deteriorated, 
major repairs will tend to be postponed. This will 
be especially true if other surrounding buildings are 
in a similar state. Whole areas will be found in 
some cities which are so badly in need of major 
repairs that they have been condemned by the 
authorities as unfit for human habitation. 

Table XIII shows the proportion of blocks in Rich- 
mond, Va., in 1934 with none, some, or all of the 
dwellings in the block in need of major repairs or 
unfit for use. The blocks in the city are segregated 
in groups according to the average block rental. 



52 



Table XIII- Percent of Bloc\s With Different Degrees 
of Concentration of Structures in Poor Condition 





Richn 


iond, Va 


, 1934 








Number 
of blocks 


Percent distribution 


Average block rental 


Blocks 

with 

no 


Blocks 
with 
some 


Blocks 

with 

all 


Total 
blocks 






structures 


structures 


structures 


n , 






in poor 
condition 


in poor 
condition 


in poor 
condition 


group 






Percent 


Percent 


Percent 


Percent 


Less than $10 . . . 


246 


23.6 


58.9 


17.5 


100.0 


$10 to $19.99... 


712 


30.6 


64.8 


4.6 


100.0 


$20 to $29.99... 


429 


69.9 


29.6 


.5 


100.0 


$30 to $49.99... 


459 


82.5 


17.3 


.2 


100.0 


$50 or more .... 


160 


85.6 


12.5 


1.9 


100.0 


Entire city 


2,006 


54.4 


41.5 


4. 1 


100.0 



Source: U. S. Department of Commerce, Richmond Real Property Inventory, 
1934. 

The table clearly shows that at the time of the 
survey only in the lowest rental group was there a 
large percentage of blocks entirely covered with 
structures in poor condition. The highest rental 
group had the largest proportion of blocks with no 
buildings in need of major repairs or unfit for use. 
It also reveals that a large proportion of blocks in 
the lowest rental groups had some structures in poor 
condition but that in blocks with an average rent of 
$20 or more, the great majority of blocks had no 
buildings in poor condition. Table X corroborates 
the fact that houses in poor condition do not show 
a smooth transition from low rental groups to high 
rental groups. Houses in poor condition are a 
dominating characteristic of the low rent groups 
and are present in much smaller proportions in 
blocks with average rents of $20 or more. Thus the 
condition of houses may be said to be a definite fac- 
tor in the gradations of rent, but it is a factor of 
greatest importance in the lower rent categories. 

Units lacking private bath. — At the present time, 
few houses are built in urban communities without 
a private bath; in these areas even the cheaper types 
of residential structures usually include this accom- 
modation. Plumbing manufacture and habits of per- 
sonal cleanliness have made great strides in the past 
decades. Decades ago there were few houses built 
with bathrooms. As demand increased and costs 
decreased, installations were more common in new 
construction of the time, and structures already 
erected were frequently modernized to keep pace 



with public demand. In most cases, however, 
modernization was undoubtedly a function of ex- 
pense. If the owner could afford the accommoda- 
tion, or the landlord felt that installation of private 
baths would yield monetary returns, modernization 
took place. If, on the other hand, owners were un- 
able to afford the innovation, or rents yielded a 
sufficient return to landlords without the extra ex- 
pense, modernization was postponed. The lack of a 
private bath, then, may be said to be indicative of 
obsolescence. 

The table below shows, for Richmond, Va., the 
proportion of blocks with none, some, or all of the 
dwelling units in the block lacking a private bath 
in 1934. The blocks in the city are segregated in 
groups according to the average block rental. 

Table XIV. — Percent of Bloc\s With Different Degrees 
of Concentration of Dwelling Units Lac\ing Private 
Bath 

Richmond, Va., 1934 



Average block 
rental 



Less than $10 
$10 to $19.99 
$20 to $29.99 
$30 to $49.99 
$50 or more . 
Entire city . . 



Number of 
block 



246 
712 
429 
459 
160 
2,006 





Percent distribution 


Blocks 


Blocks 


Blocks 


with no 


with some 


with till 


units 


units 


units 


lacking 


lacking 


lacking 


private 


private 


private 


bath 


bath 


bath 


Percent 


Percent 


Percent 


2.4 


48.4 


49.2 


15.7 


73.2 


11.1 


66.0 


33.5 


.5 


90.4 


9.6 





96.9 


3.1 





48.4 


41.5 


10.1 



Total 
blocks 

in 
rental 
group 



Percent 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 



Source: U. S. Department of Commerce, Richmond Real Property Inventory, 
1934. 

Nearly all of the blocks in the lowest rent group 
were without private baths either entirely or to 
some degree. The next highest rent group was but 
little better off, although there were relatively few 
blocks in this group completely lacking private 
baths. Blocks with average rent of $20 or more 
included almost no blocks which completely lacked 
this modern convenience and only a small per- 
centage of blocks with some units lacking a private 
bath. Clearly, dwelling units without private bath 
were preponderant in blocks with an average rent 
of less than $20 per month. Thus, in the gradations 
of rents, it is a factor of greatest importance in the 
lowest rental groups and has a significance quite 



53 



small in the blocks where higher average rents 
prevail. 

T^pnwhite occupancy. — This factor was useful 
in the illustration of our technique in the preceding 
chapter. Its very nature, however, precludes its 
use in the analysis of some cities. In northern 
cities, nonwhite occupancy is sometimes so small 
as to be almost negligible, and in others it is almost 
nonexistent. Also it is not necessarily indicative 
of low quality housing. There are many slum 
areas tenanted by whites which are in as poor or 
worse condition than areas tenanted by non whites. 
The same cities may also contain areas occupied by 
colored races where acceptable housing conditions 
prevail. In areas entirely occupied by nonwhite 
races, the same influences should be reflected in rent 
as in areas entirely occupied by whites. In wholly 
white areas, the gradual filtration of other than white 
races tends slowly to change the character of neigh- 
borhoods. The presence of even one nonwhite 
person in a block otherwise populated by whites 
may initiate a period of transition. 

The proportionate concentration of nonwhite 
persons in each block is therefore significant in any 
study of rent gradations. This is shown in table 
XV, for Richmond, Va. As in preceding tables, 
the blocks have been grouped according to average 
block rent. 

Table XV. — Percent of Bloc\s With Different Degrees 
of Concentration of T^onwhite Occupants 

Richmond, Va., 1934 





Number 
of blocks 


Percent distribution 


Average block 


Blocks 


Blocks 


Blocks 


Total 


rental 


with no 


with some 


with all 


blocks 






nonwhite 


nonwhite 


nonwhite 


in rental 






occupants 


occupants 


occupants 


group 






Percent 


Percent 


Percent 


Percent 


Less than $10. . . 


246 


25.6 


29.3 


45.1 


100.0 


$10 to $19.99... 


712 


52.8 


27.5 


19.7 


100.0 


$20 to $29.99 . . . 


429 


93.7 


3.8 


2.5 


100.0 


$30 to $49.99. .. 


459 


98.9 


.9 


.2 


100.0 


$50 or more .... 


160 


100.0 








100.0 


Entire city 


2,006 


72.6 


14.3 


13. 1 


100.0 



Source: U. S. Department of Commerce, Richmond Real Property Inventory, 
1934. 

The nonwhite population of this city at the time 
of the survey was almost entirely in blocks in which 
rent averaged less than $20 per month. Almost half 
the blocks in the lowest rental category were fully 



occupied by nonwhites. In blocks with average 
rents of $20 or more per month, the proportion of 
blocks either fully or partially occupied by nonwhites 
was relatively small. In the highest rental grouping, 
all occupants were white. There is thus a distinct 
tendency for blocks occupied by nonwhites to fall 
into lower rental groups. This is principally re- 
flective of the economic conditions of the nonwhite 
population. In relation to gradations of rent, there- 
fore, nonwhite occupancy is of significance. But the 
presence of nonwhite persons influences rent directly 
only in those blocks partially occupied by nonwhite 
persons. In some cities, rents in wholly white 
blocks adjacent to wholly or partially nonwhite 
blocks may also be affected. 

Units lacking central heat. — As has been indicated 
previously, units lacking central heat are a common- 
place in the southern tier of States where heating 
equipment is more a luxury than a necessity. In 
some locations, it may even be an unwarranted 
expense. For that reason, the geographic location 
of the city must be considered when this factor is 
used in measurement. Like plumbing equipment, 
however, central heating systems have been vastly 
improved during the past several decades. In the 
past, many homes of wealth were heated by methods 
which would be tolerated by very few people today. 
Like plumbing equipment, installations of central 
heating plants were an item of expense, and many 
buildings were constructed in the nineteenth cen- 
tury without any form of central heat. 

The proportion, in Richmond, Va., of blocks in 
which none, some, or all of the dwelling units in 
the block lacked central heating equipment in 
1934 is shown in table XVI. Rental groupings 
include only those blocks with the indicated average 
block rent. 

The table shows that, at the time of the survey, a 
relatively large proportion of blocks in which all 
units lacked central heat were in the rent groups 
below $20 per month. Conversely, it also reveals 
that a large proportion of blocks in which no units 
lacked central heat were in the rent groups contain- 
ing blocks with average rents of $30 per month or 
more. Break-downs of "Blocks with some units 
lacking central heat" show that in the two lower 
rental groups most blocks under this heading con- 
tained a preponderant concentration of units with- 
out central heat. The middle rent group in this 



54 



column has blocks more evenly spread from thin to 
high concentration of this factor. Blocks of the two 
upper rent groups in this column have most blocks 
with only small concentrations of units without 
central heat. Thus, in the gradations of rents, we 
may say that central heat is of most significance in 
the lower rental groups and is of small import in the 
higher average block rents. Geographical relation' 
ship, too, must be considered. 

Table XVI . — Percent of Blocks With Different Degrees 
of Concentration of Dwelling Units Lacking Central 
Heat 

Richmond, Va., 1934 





Number 

of 
blocks 


Percent distribution 


Average block 
rental 


Blocks 
with 

no 

units 

lacking 

central 

heat 


Blocks 
with 
some 
units 
lacking 
central 
heat 


Blocks 

with 

all 

units 

lacking 

central 

heat 


Total 
blocks 

in 
rental 
group 


Less than $10 . . . 
$10 to $19.99... 
$20 to $29.99... 
$30 to $49.99... 
$50 or more .... 
Entire city 


246 
712 
429 
459 
160 
2,006 


Percent 



.7 

10.3 

55.3 

84.4 

4.2 


Percent 

9.7 
36.6 
62.7 
43.0 
13. 1 
56. 1 


Percent 

90.3 
62.7 
27.0 

1.7 

2.5 

39.7 


Percent 
100.0 

100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 



Source: U. S. Department of Commerce, Richmond Real Property Inventory, 
1934. 

Overcrowded x dwelling units. — Overcrowding is 
an important consideration in the determination of 
the character of neighborhoods. Indirectly, it re- 
flects the number of rooms per dwelling unit and the 
birth rates of different income groups of population. 
Insofar as it reflects the economic circumstances of 
any particular family, however, it is reflected in rent. 
In the choice of dwelling units open to a large family, 
a selection may be made so that a sufficient number 
of rooms is obtained, but other conditions more 
directly indicative of low quality housing would 
then be likely to be present. If, however, a choice 
is made of a small number of rooms so that other un- 
desirable conditions are eliminated, overcrowding is 
likely to be present. Families of low income must 
choose the lesser of a multiplicity of undesirable con- 
ditions. The higher income groups seldom are 
cramped for space because of the fewer undesirable 
items they must eliminate in their choice of a home. 

1 See appendix for definition. 



Table XVII shows the proportion in Richmond, 
Va., of blocks in which some, none, or all of the 
dwelling units in the block were overcrowded in 
1934. Rental groupings include only those blocks 
with the indicated average rent. 

Table XVII. — Percent ofBloc\s With Different Degrees 
of Concentration of Overcrowded Dwelling Units 

Richmond, Va., 1934 





Number 

of 
blocks 


Percent distribution 




Blocks 


Blocks 


Blocks 




Average block rental 


with 
no 


with 
some 


with 
all 


Total 
blocks 






over- 


over- 


over- 


in 






crowded 


crowded 


crowded 


rental 






dwelling 


dwelling 


dwelling 


group 






units 


units 


units 








Percent 


Percent 


Percent 


Percent 


Less than $10. . . 


246 


11.4 


86.2 


2.4 


100.0 


$10 to $19.99. . 


712 


8.7 


89.6 


1.7 


100.0 


$20 to $29.99. .. 


429 


25.6 


74.2 


.2 


100.0 


$30 to $49.99. 


459 


43.6 


56.0 


.4 


100.0 


$50 or more .... 


160 


73.7 


25.7 


.6 


100.0 


Entire city 


2,006 


25.8 


73. 1 


1. 1 


100.0 



Source: U. S. Department of Commerce, Richmond Real Property Inven- 
tory, 1934. 

As may be seen from the table, very few blocks in 
even the lower rental groups were entirely over- 
crowded at the time of the survey. And there was 
a greater proportion of entirely overcrowded blocks 
in the highest rental groups than the two next lower 
groups. There is not a smooth transition in the 
column showing the proportion of blocks with no 
overcrowded dwelling units. In blocks with some 
overcrowding, however, a break-down of the figures 
reveals that the two lowest rent groups had larger 
concentrations of overcrowding than the higher 
rent groups. This is clearly indicated by intercom- 
paring this table with table X which gives the 
percentage of units overcrowded in each rental 
group. Thus, in its relationship with rent grada- 
tions, overcrowding does have definite significance 
but is important only as a reflector of factors pre- 
viously mentioned. 

Having examined the relative concentration of 
each of the above factors within blocks in different 
rental categories, we now have a clearer view of how 
those forces interact and are reflected in average 
block rent. It has been noted that the relative con- 
centration of any one of the factors discussed is of 
varying significance in reflecting gradations of block 



55 



rent. We may assert with confidence, however, 
that the presence of a number of the ponderable 
factors discussed is almost necessarily indicative of 
low rent. The greater the number of those factors 
present, the lower the attractiveness to the tenant, 
and the less he will be willing to pay as rent. Some 
of them are indicative of the quality of the structure 
itself, others are indicative of the neighborhood. 

Any one factor, however, may be present in an 
isolated case and still permit a relatively high rent. 
An individual structure may be 35 years old or 
more and have none of the other characteristics 
enumerated above. The house may be tenant 
occupied and still be a new, modern, up-to-date 
tenant dwelling with no overcrowding. Major 
structural repairs may be necessary — and all other 
factors indicative of low-quality housing may be 
completely lacking — and so on down the entire 
list. A single factor may exist or some combination 
of those factors — and when single or few factors 
do exist, their presence does not necessarily throw 
that particular case into any particular rent group- 
ing. As the tables in this chapter have shown, all 
of the factors are present to varying degree in all 
gradations of rent. Low rent does indicate that 
some combination of factors indicative of poor' 
quality housing are present. The combination 
may be different in different sections or blocks; they 
may even be different in adjoining buildings com' 
manding the same rent. But in a given city, at a given 
time, different gradations of rent are a reflection of all 
the ponderable and imponderable factors considered 
by tenants in selecting a place of habitation. 

In summary: extremely low rent is usually accom- 
panied by a combination of adverse housing con' 
ditions, but the rise in rent from the middle to the 
upper ranges is not followed by any commensurable 
improvement in factors that measure the presence 
or absence of basic modern conveniences. Grada' 
tions of rent in the upper ranges measure, in increas- 
ing degree, those forces not recorded in real prop- 
erty surveys such as topography, style of architec- 
ture, accessibility to schools and shopping centers, 
the incomes of the residents, the proximity to 
adverse influences, restrictive covenants, and other 
features. Thus, having earlier shown the signifi- 
cance of average block rent as a measure of the rents 
of dwelling units in a block, we may now proceed 
to use the working hypothesis — that average bloc\ 



rent is representative of a series of other housing factors. 
Accordingly, rent is the basic tool which may 
be used in the alternative technique in the analysis 
of those urban areas where broad basic data are not 
readily available. In such cases, the average rent 
of dwelling units in a block can be quickly ascer- 
tained on a sample basis. Sometimes adequate sam- 
pling is obtainable from records of rental units 
handled through real-estate agents. In such a case 
no door-to-door survey may be necessary, thus reduc- 
ing the probable cost and time required to obtain 
the desired data. On the basis of records and esti- 
mates of rents based on the informed opinion of real 
estate agents, high, low, and intermediate rental 
areas may be defined for city areas that include a 
number of blocks. If the lines of transition between 
different types of areas are carefully noted, this 
short-cut method may produce fairly accurate re- 
sults. It is thus possible to make a quick analysis 
of the structure of cities in which no surveys of real 
property have been taken and to compare the extent 
and location of the various rental areas in a short 
time. 

Of course, this alternative method is no substi- 
tute for the intensive technique outlined in the 
last chapter. As was there pointed out, that 
method permits of great flexibility. Not only 
may the best or the worst areas in the city be clearly 
delineated within the urban mass; a judicious selec- 
tion of the required factors for measurement, tem- 
pered by the use of appropriate class intervals for 
each factor used in measurement, will permit the 
delineation of numerous types of residential neigh- 
borhoods. A set of factors appropriate for the 
determination of areas in which to encourage mort- 
gage lending may be entirely unsuited for the out- 
lining of areas within which a problem in child 
psychology is to be studied. The segregation of 
areas within which to promote slum eradication 
activities will require the selection of different items 
and limitations than the location of areas of modern 
and well-kept homes. The selection of the proper 
factors, and, of equal importance, the limits to 
be imposed upon the factors chosen, is thus left 
completely to the analyst. His judgment in selec- 
tion will, of course, be guided by the requirements 
of the problem and the scope of the data available. 
The data chosen for illustration in chapter III were 
illustrative of the most significant factors indicative 



56 



of housing quality in Richmond, Va. They were 
limited by appropriate class intervals for proper 
delineation of areas of worst housing conditions. 
As explained above, different factors and different 
limitations will need to be chosen for the solution of 
other problems — the judgment of the analyst is of 
great importance in the correct application of the 
tool here suggested. The technique is clearly appli' 
cable to a wide variety of uses where the data are 
available. 
In those cases in which data are not available, the 



analyst may resort to the alternative technique of 
sampling rents as outlined above. As we have 
shown in this chapter, gradations of rent in some 
degree measure variations in housing quality. 
The use of this alternative technique, however, is 
limited to those cases were rent alone is a sufficient 
factor of guidance in the solution of the problem. 
It cannot be emphasised too strongly that it is of no 
significance in indicating the certain presence of any 
of the weighable factors contributing to the quality 
of housing. 



57 



Chapter V 



The Composition of Urban American Dwellings 

and Their Inhabitants 



w 



'E have now shown two methods whereby- 
residential neighborhoods in American cities may be 
analyzed by those interested in city structure. The 
first method is intensive. At the same time it is 
sufficiently flexible to prove of varied use in the delin- 
eation of types of residential areas. The second 
method is a short cut. It has been outlined for use 
by those desiring only a rough analysis, or for use in 
those cities for which the necessary basic data have 
not been compiled. 

The significance of rent as a representative of a 
series of other housing factors was discussed at 
length in the previous chapter. It was noted that 
the more measurable adverse qualities of housing 
were of greater weight in the lower rental groups 
but that individual adverse characteristics were of 
less significance as rent increased. In the higher 
rental groups, the more imponderable forces were the 
more significant determinants of gradations of rent. 
Since it is the purpose of this section of this mono- 
graph ultimately to arrive at principles concerning 
the location of high, low, and intermediate rental 
areas in American cities, it is apropos at this point to 
dwell at some length upon the composition of urban 
American dwellings and their inhabitants. 

Although a conglomerate mass of statistical data 
usually has little significance unless separated into 
properly coordinated component segments, a detailed 
description of each of a large number of American 
cities is beyond the scope of this volume. We do 
not wish to present an encyclopedia of factual data 
but do desire to give some indication of the charac- 
teristics of urban American dwellings and their 
inhabitants. Individual cities, of course, all have 
characteristics peculiar to themselves. Composite 
data giving the proportionate representation of 
characteristics common to a large number of cities, 



however, will afford an airplane view of the compo- 
sition of American cities. We will have recourse to 
the summary of the voluminous data recorded for 
the first 64 cities in which real property surveys 1 
were conducted in 1934. Since the largest city in 
this group is Cleveland, peculiarities attributable 
to large metropolitan centers like New York and 
Chicago will be avoided. 

The cities surveyed contained 1,945,272 structures 
with 2,633,135 dwelling units in 100,770 blocks. 
Since, in previous pages, we have seen that the age 
and condition of the structures in any residential 
area is an important factor in the determination of 
rent, it is significant to note that, in these 64 cities 
in 1934, only 25.9 percent of the structures were less 
than 10 years old and 51.6 percent were less than 
20 years old. The structures 30 years old or more 
constituted 30.2 percent of all the dwellings sur- 
veyed. In the array of age groupings, the number of 
buildings in each next older grouping was progres- 
sively smaller. It is interesting to note, however, 
that 7-9 percent of the structures in existence in 
these 64 cities in 1934 were 50 years old or more. 
Their condition was generally good, but 44.4 percent 
of all the buildings were reported as needing minor 
repairs. Those in need of major repairs constituted 
only 15.7 percent and those unfit for use, only 2.3 
percent. 

Only 19.6 percent of the 2,663,135 dwelling units 
on which reports were obtained in the 64 cities 
contained less than 4 rooms. Conditions of over- 
crowded dwellings were probably most prevalent 
in this category. Of the 519,227 dwelling units 
with less than 4 rooms, 59,738, or 11.5 percent, 



1 The appendix, pp. 124-128, gives the history of these and subsequent 
real property surveys, definitions of data gathered, and the use made of such 
data by maps or otherwise. 



58 



were vacant; on the other hand, of the 977,938 
dwelling units with 6 or more rooms, only 51,280, 
or 5.2 percent, were vacant. As to overcrowding, 
82.9 percent of all occupied dwellings were inhabited 
by families numbering 1 person per room or less. 
Only 15.6 percent of all occupied dwelling units 
contained between 1 and 2 persons per room. More 
than 2 persons per room was very rare — only 1.5 
percent of the dwelling units had this condition of 
overcrowding. 

Certain items for which data were obtained in the 
64 cities were indicative of the extent of the use of 
modern conveniences. Thus, we have statistical 
data relevant to the presence or absence of running 
water, private indoor flush toilets, and bathing, 
heating, lighting, cooking, and refrigeration equip- 
ment. Only 8.0 percent of the dwelling units con' 
tained no running water, but 25.0 percent contained 
only cold running water. There were 17-1 percent 
which either shared or had no indoor flush toilet; 
but 6.2 percent of the dwelling units had 2 private 
toilets or more. There were 23.3 percent of the 
dwelling units which either shared or had no bathing 
equipment; only 3.0 percent had 2 or more baths. 

Central heating equipment was contained in 50.5 
percent of the homes. Heating stoves were in use 
in 42.5 percent of the dwelling units and other types 
of heating equipment by 6.7 percent; only 0.3 per- 
cent of the dwelling units contained no heating 
equipment at all. Of the homes which had heating 
equipment, over two-thirds, 67-7 percent, used coal 
and 11.9 percent still used wood. Only 11.7 per- 
cent of the dwelling units with heating equip- 
ment used gas for heating purposes and still fewer, 
6.7 percent, used oil for heating. 

Table XVIII. — Characteristics of the Residential 
Areas ' in 64 American Cities in 1934 

A. Intensity of Land Use 



TYPE OF STRUCTURE (STRUCTURES) 

Single-family 1, 536, 806 79. 

2-family 250, 670 12. 9 

3-family 26, 434 1.4 

1 Except where noted, includes all owner-occupied, tenant-occupied, and 
vacant dwelling units in all structures used for residential purposes in the 
64 cities. 



Number 



Percent 



Table XVIII. — Characteristics of the Residential 
Areas in 64 American Cities in 1934 — Continued 

A. Intensity of Land Use — Continued 





Number 


Percent 


TYPE OF STRUCTURE (STRUCTURES) 

— continued 
4-family 


21, 669 
7,051 

22, 053 
80, 589 


1. 1 


Row house 


. 4 


Apartment building 


1. 1 


Other structures 


4. 1 






Total reports 


1, 945, 272 


100.0 






NUMBER OF STORIES 

1 story 


938, 670 

910, 556 

88, 766 

4,981 


48. 2 


2 stories 


46 9 


3 stories 


4.6 


4 stories or more 


. 3 






Total reports 


1, 942, 973 


100.0 






NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS 

In single-family structures 

In 2-family structures 


1, 536, 806 

501, 340 

79, 302 

86, 676 

38, 380 

246, 946 

143, 685 


58.3 
19.0 


In 3-family structures 


3.0 


In 4-family structures 


3. 3 


In row houses 


1. 5 


In apartment buildings 

In other structures 


9.4 
5.5 


Total reports 


2, 633, 135 


100.0 



B. Age and Condition of Structures 



AGE OF STRUCTURES 

Less than 5 years 

5 to 10 years 

10 to 15 years 

15 to 20 years 

20 to 25 years 

25 to 30 years 

30 to 35 years 

35 to 40 years 

40 to 50 years 

50 to 75 years 

75 years or more 

Total reports 

CONDITION OF STRUCTURES 

Good condition 

Needs minor repairs 

Needs major repairs 

Unfit for use 

Total reports 



131, 488 
370, 992 
264, 228 
234, 771 
203, 641 
148, 892 
189, 536 

81, 577 
161, 446 
124, 615 

29, 216 



1, 940, 402 



730, 525 

863, 855 

304, 351 

44, 341 



1, 943, 072 



6.8 

19.1 

13.6 

12.1 

10.5 

7.7 

9.8 

4.2 

8.3 

6.4 

1.5 



100.0 



37.6 

44.4 

15.7 

2.3 



100.0 



163253—39- 



59 



Table XVIII.— Characteristics of the Residential 
Areas in 64 American Cities in 1934 — Continued 

C. Intensity of Use of Dwelling Units 





Number 


Percent 


NUMBER OE ROOMS 

1 room 


(all units) 


45, 857 
159, 181 
314, 189 
458, 096 
677, 874 
520, 502 
457, 436 


1.7 


2 rooms 


6.0 


3 rooms 


11.9 


4 rooms 


17.4 


5 rooms 


25.8 


6 rooms 


19.8 


7 rooms or 


more 




17.4 




reports. . . . 






Total 


2, 633, 135 


100. 













Number 


Percent 


Percent 

vacant 


vacancies (vacant units) 

1 room 

2 rooms 

3 rooms 

4 rooms 

5 rooms 

6 rooms 

7 rooms or more 


6,483 
19, 100 
34, 155 
45, 187 
48, 023 
28, 800 
22, 480 


3.2 
9.4 
16.7 
22. 1 
23.5 
14. 1 
11.0 


14. 1 
12.0 
10.9 
9.9 
7.1 
5.5 
4.9 


Total reports 


204, 228 


100.0 


7.8 



PERSONS PER ROOM IN OCCUPIED UNITS 

Units with 0.50 or less person 

Units with 0.51-0.75 person 

Units with 0.76-1 person 

Units with 1.01-2 persons 

Units with 2.01-3 persons 

Units with 3.01 persons or more 



Total reports . 



Number 



703, 636 
655, 017 
651, 930 
379, 432 
29, 284 
6, 120 



2, 425, 419 



Percent 



29.0 
27.0 
26.9 
15.6 

1.2 

. 3 



100.0 



D. Appurtenances of Dwelling Units 




RUNNING 

Hot and cold 


WATER 




1, 762, 546 
657, 921 
209, 884 


67 


Cold only 

No running water . . 


FLUSH 


TOILET 


25.0 
8.0 


Total reports . 


2, 630, 351 


100. 


PRIVATE INDOOR 

2 toilets or more . . . 


162, 454 

2, 015, 887 
449, 627 


6 2 


1 toilet 


76.7 
17.1 


Shared or no toilet . 






Total reports . 


2, 627, 968 


100 











Table XVIII. Characteristics of the Residential 
Areas in 64 American Cities in 1934 — Continued 

D. Appurtenances of Dwelling Units Continued 

Number Percent 



BATHING EQUIPMENT 

2 baths or more 78, 895 

1 bath ! 1,935,977 

Shared or no bath 612, 977 

Total reports 

HEATING EQUIPMENT 



Central steam or vapor . 

Central hot water 

Central warm air 

Heating stoves 

Other 

None 



Total reports 

LIGHTING EQUIPMENT 



Electric . 
Gas 
Other . . 



Total reports 

COOKING EQUIPMENT 



Electric 

Gas 

Other or none . 



Total reports 

REFRIGERATION EQUIPMENT 



Mechanical refrigeration . 
Ice or none 



Total reports 

FUEL FOR HEATING 



Coal.. 
Gas. . 
Oil.. 
Wood 
Other . 



Total reports . 



2, 627, 849 



316,675 
194, 535 
818, 087 
1, 117,254 
175, 077 
8,110 



2, 629, 738 



2, 385, 876 

6,010 

235, 566 



2, 627, 452 



101, 953 

1, 828, 463 

696, 848 



2, 627, 264 



447, 135 
2, 169, 296 



2, 616, 431 



1, 773, 380 

305, 964 

175, 340 

310, 328 

53, 186 



3.0 
73.7 
23.3 



100.0 



12.0 

7.4 

31. 1 

42.5 

6.7 

.3 



100.0 



90.8 

.2 

9.0 



100.0 



3.9 
69.6 
26.5 



100.0 



17.1 
82.9 

100.0 



67.7 
11.7 

6.7 
11.9 

2.0 



2, 618, 198 , 100. 



Source: Works Progress Administration, Urban Housing, a Summary of 
Real Property Inventories Conducted as Worlds Projects, 1934 36 (Washington 
D. C, 1938) table 2. 

Present day lighting equipment where public utih 
ities were used was almost universally of the electric 
type — only 0.2 percent of all dwelling units in the 64 
cities used gas for lighting; but 9.0 percent used some 



60 



other media than either gas or electricity. Cooking, 
as might be expected, was done by gas in 69.6 pei- 
cent of all dwelling units; only 3.9 percent used the 
most recent development of electric cooking. There 
were, however, 26.5 percent which either had no 
cooking equipment or used coal, wood, or kerosene 
stoves for cooking purposes. 

Mechanical refrigeration was used in only 17-1 
percent of the homes surveyed. 

All of the items for the 64 city sample which we 
have just reviewed are directly reflective of the qual- 
ity of housing in those cities . A summary of the char- 
acteristics is shown in table XVIII. We present these 
figures to give the reader some idea of the prevalence 
of the characteristics enumerated. They are pres- 
ent in numerous combinations and are reflective of 
gradations of rent. Individually, any one character- 
istic may or may not be present in every low-rent 
neighborhood. They have a significance, however, 
dependent upon their degree of combination. The 
age and condition of the structure, the modernity of 
the conveniences present or absent in the dwelling 
units, and other factors not here dwelt upon, all 
combine to distribute (a) the values of the owner- 
occupied single-family dwellings and (b) the rents of 
tenant-occupied and vacant dwelling units in the 
64 city sample as shown in table XIX. 

As may be seen from the table, 41-7 percent of the 
single-family homes in these cities were valued at 
less than $3,000 and 71-0 percent at less than $5,000 
in 1934. Over one-third of the tenant-occupied and 
vacant dwelling units had a monthly rental value of 
from $10 to $19.99. Nearly 80 percent of all these 
homes in the 64 cities had a rental value of less than 
$30 per month. 

The length of occupancy of dwellings is of inter- 
est in the structure of cities, not only as a reflector 
of the stability of home ownership but also as it re- 
flects the mobility of tenant occupancy. The distri- 
bution of the duration of occupancy of both owner- 
occupied and tenant-occupied dwelling units is 
shown in table XX. 

In the 64 cities covered here, 32.9 percent of the 
tenant-occupied dwelling units were tenanted by 
persons who had moved in less than 6 months prior 
to the date of the survey. Nearly two-thirds of the 
tenants had lived in their homes less than 2 years. 
Conversely, owner-occupied dwelling units had 
been occupied by more than three-fourths of all 



owner occupants in these cities for 5 years or more. 
Curiously, the percentage of owner occupants and of 
tenant occupants is almost exactly the same — 10.7 
percent and 10.6 percent, respectively — in the 
occupancy class interval of 3 to 5 years. 

Table XIX. — Distribution of Residential Values and 
Rents in 64 Cities in 1934 

(A) Value of Owner-Occupied Single-Family Dwellings 



VALUE GROUP 

Less than $1,000 

$1,000 to $1,999 

$2,000 to $2,999 . 
$3,000 to $4,999. . 

$5,000 to $7,499 

$7,500 to $9,999 

$10,000 to $14,999 

$15,000 to $19,999. . 
$20,000 or more 

Total reports 



Distribution 



Number 



Percent 



68, 894 


8.0 


133, 964 


15.6 


154, 730 


18. 1 


250, 515 


29.3 


146, 921 


17.2 


46, 169 


5.4 


31, 144 


3.6 


11, 405 


1.3 


12,550 


1.5 


856, 292 


100.0 



(B) Monthly Rents of Tenant-Occupied and Vacant 
Dwelling Units 



RENT GROUP 

Less than $10 

$10 to $19.99 

$20 to $29.99 

$30 to $49-99 

$50 to $74.99 

$75 to $99.99 

$100 or more 

Total reports 



247, 918 

575, 180 

412, 770 

271, 575 

49, 586 

8,074 

4,668 



1, 569, 771 



15.8 
36.6 

26.3 

17.3 

3.2 

.5 

.3 



100.0 



Source: U. S. Department of Commerce, Real Property Inventories, 1934. 

Table XX. — Distribution of the Duration of Occu- 
pancy of Dwelling Units in 64 Cities 



Less than 6 months . 
6 months to 1 year . 

1 to 2 years 

2 to 3 years 

3 to 5 years 

5 to 10 years 

10 to 20 years 

20 years or more . . . 



Total . 



Owner 

occupied 



Percent 

3.2 

2.2 

3.8 

4.1 

10.7 

28.9 

30.8 

16.3 



100.0 



Tenant 
occupied 



Percent 

32.9 

15.9 

16.3 

9.0 

10.6 

9.3 

4.6 

1.4 



100.0 



Total 



Percent 

20.2 

10. 1 

11.0 

6.9 

10.6 
17.7 
15.8 

7.7 



100.0 



Source: U. S. Department of Commerce, Real Property Inventories, 1934. 



61 



Apart from the impact of all those forces, both 
capable and incapable of measurement, which deter' 
mine the quality of residential neighborhoods, many 
American cities contain residential areas charac- 
terized by the predominant presence of certain 
races and nationalities. As an aftermath of the 
influx of peoples from the tides of immigration in 
the decades prior to the World War, many sections 
in our cities became populated by persons of the 
same nationality. This was particularly true of 
non-English-speaking peoples. Thus, the Chinese 
quarter of San Francisco, the "Little Italy 11 of both 
Chicago and New York, the large sections of these 
and other cities largely populated by Poles, Ger- 
mans, Slovaks, Czechs, Turks, Swedes, Norwegians, 
and other nationalities grew in size and were almost 
cities within the boundaries of our cities. 

People of the same nationality tended to live 
together because of a desire for companionship with 
fellows of common background. Speaking different 
languages, inhabitants of those communities felt that 
they constituted a class different from earlier immi- 
grants to our shores. Not until their children were 
educated in our schools and grew up in the Ameri- 
can environment did any great diffusion of nationali- 
ties occur. In other words, time is an important 
factor in the "melting pot 11 aspect of American 
urbanism. Since immigration laws have been tight- 
ened considerably in the past two decades, the 
German, Russian, Polish, and other areas within our 
cities will undoubtedly tend to become more and 
more diffused within the common mass of the urban 
organism. 

A more significant problem facing American cities, 
however, is the segregation of sectors populated by 
different races. Only in a few very old European 
cosmopolitan centers do we find members of different 
races living in harmony side by side. Segregation of 
races is of importance in other countries as well as 
in the United States — witness the American and 
European colonies in China. In the United States, 
a country largely settled by whites, Indians were the 
original settlers, Negroes are a heritage of pre- 
Revolutionary times, Chinese people (now banned 
by immigration authorities) settled here when they 
came in large numbers to participate in the Cali- 
fornia gold rush, and Mexicans 2 have long settled 
in lower California, Texas, and other States on our 
southern boundaries. In a country settled largely 



by the white race, such members of other races, of 
course, have not been absorbed. Intermarriage 
between members of different races exists but is 
frowned upon by almost all peoples of any color. 
Persons of mixed color are mostly products of the 
Negro and white races and, together with other 
races, have been classified in real property surveys 
as "other than white. 11 

No statistical demonstration is required to prove 
the existence of Harlem in New York, the "Black 
Belt 11 in Chicago, or the Chinese quarter in San 
Francisco. It is a mere truism to enunciate that 
colored people tend to live in segregated districts of 
American cities. As we have said in previous pages, 
the reflection of adverse housing characteristics in 
rent should tend to operate in the same manner in 
areas populated entirely by colored races as in areas 
populated only by whites. It is in the twilight zone, 
where members of different races live together that 
racial mixtures tend to have a depressing effect upon 
land values — and therefore, upon rents. 

Therefore, the exact extent of the concentration 
or dispersion of nonwhite peoples in American cities, 
the pattern of the nonwhite area and its relation to 
other neighborhoods, and the housing characteristics 
of solid and mixed racial blocks are significant in the 
study of the structure of the American city. Since 
the Negro population comprised 86 percent of the 
nonwhite population of the United States in 1930, 
we will begin our analysis with a broad survey of 
the distribution of the Negro segments in our 
population. 

The distribution of the Negro population in the 
entire United States is characterized by extraordi- 
nary variations. Of the 11,891,143 Negroes in the 
United States in 1930, 75.0 percent were in the 
South, 24.0 percent in the North, and only 1.0 per- 
cent in the Pacific and Mountain States. 3 Thus, 
there is a relatively dense concentration of Negroes 
in the South, where they comprise 25.5 percent of 
the total population. There is almost an entire 

2 The U. S. Census Bureau, prior to the 1930 census, classified most Mexi' 
cans as "White"; but in 1930, persons of Mexican birth or parentage who 
were not definitely repotted as "White" or "Indian" were designated as 
'Mexican." Persons recorded as either "Indian" or "Mexican" were there- 
fore included in the general class of "Other races." 

3 U. S. Department of Commerce, J^egroes in the United States, 1920-32, 
(Washington, D. C, 1935), p. 9. In our discussion the New England, Middle 
Atlantic, East and West North Central States and Delaware, Maryland, and 
District of Columbia are classed as "Northern" States; and all other South 
Atlantic, and East and West South Central States are classed as Southern 
States. 



62 






absence of Negroes in the Mountain and Pacific 
Coast States, where they comprise only 1.0 percent 
of the total population; and in the North they form 
but 3.8 percent of the total population. 

Not only is there the widest variation in the den' 
sity of Negroes among different sections of the 
United States, but there is a wide difference between 
the North and the South in the distribution of the 
Negro population in urban and rural areas. The 
southern Negro is predominantly rural, with 70.2 
percent living outside of urban territory. The 
northern Negro is to an even greater extent a city 
dweller, 85.4 percent living in urban communities. 4 

Not only do Negroes in the North live mainly in 
cities, but they reside in relatively few cities. Figure 
25 shows the distribution of Negroes among the 79 
northern and southern cities containing more than 
10,000 Negroes in 1930 and gives the percentage of 
Negroes to the total population in each city. The 
10 northern cities of largest Negro population con' 
tained 59 percent of all northern Negroes. The 
entire group of 28 northern cities includes 74 percent 
or 1,800,088 of the 2,435,088 northern urban-dwell- 
ing Negroes. Consequently, in most of the smaller 
urban communities in the North there are relatively 
few Negroes. Hence, the Harlem of New York and 
the "'Black Belt" of Chicago are not typical of the 
average northern American city. In the South, on 
the other hand, only 29.8 percent of the Negroes live 
in cities. The 51 southern cities with 10,000 or 
more colored persons in 1930 shown in figure 25 had 
only 1,496,967 Negroes or 56.3 percent of the entire 
Negro urban population of the South, leaving al- 
most half of the southern urban Negroes to be dis- 
tributed among smaller cities. 5 

Figure 25 also shows a marked difference between 
northern and southern cities with respect to the per- 
centage of Negroes in the total population. While 
six northern cities each had over 100,000 Negroes in 
1930 and 28 northern cities had 10,000 or more 
Negroes in the same year, the ratio of colored per- 
sons to the total population in the northern cities 
was relatively low. Even the 327,706 Negroes in 
New York constituted only 4-7 percent of the total 
population in 1930, while the 233,903 colored per- 
sons in Chicago comprised only 6.9 percent of the 
total number of persons in that city. In the South 

4 Op. at., p. 53. 

5 Op. cit., 54, 55. 



only one city, New Orleans, had a populajion of more 
than 100,000 Negroes in 1930. In contrast to north- 
ern cities, Negroes comprised large proportions of 
the population in the southern cities — 29 percent in 
Richmond, 28 percent in New Orleans, 33 percent in 
Atlanta, 38 percent in both Birmingham and Mem- 
phis, and 45 percent in both Charleston, S. C, and 
Savannah. 

The general situation with respect to the distri- 
bution of the Negro population in the United States 
has been discussed fcr background purposes as a 
preliminary to further discussion of nonwhite racial 
urban segments. Closer examination of the segre- 
gation and concentration of nonwhite races in 
American cities will be facilitated by reverting to 
the voluminous data available for the 64-city sample 
used earlier in this chapter. 6 Except for the omis- 
sion of the very large northern cities, this sample of 
cities is believed to be generally representative — 
available data for certain of the very large northern 
cities will be included at an appropriate point. 
Though we discuss nonwhite races as a whole, the 
preponderant presence of Negroes in such popula- 
tions of northern and southern cities and the mixture 
of Mexicans, Chinese, Japanese, and Negroes in 
certain western and southwestern cities, should be 
kept in mind throughout. In studying the degree of 
internal concentration or diffusion of nonwhite races 
in different cities, we are referring to the extent to 
which the nonwhite population of any city, regard- 
less of its relative proportion to the total city popu- 
lation, is concentrated in a segregated area within 
that city. 

Of the 100,770 blocks in our 64-city sample, 85,478 
or 84.8 percent were occupied exclusively by whites- 
there being 7,650,936 white persons in such blocks. 
On the other hand, 5,004 blocks or 4.9 percent were 
completely occupied by 341,565 nonwhite persons. 
The remaining 10,288 blocks or 10.3 percent were 
blocks of mixed occupancy — 682,682 whites and 
396,372 non whites. Thus, instead of being diffused 
throughout the 100,770 blocks, the nonwhite popu- 
lation of the 64-city sample was concentrated in 
15,292 blocks. 

As already shown for the Negro segment of the 
population by data from the 1930 census, the extent 
of racial concentration varies in different sections of 



6 Nonwhite races, as classified in this 64'City sample, are defined in the same 
manner as in the 1930 Census. 



63 



FIGURE 25 



79 AMERICAN CITIES WITH MORE THAN 
10,000 NEGRO POPULATION IN 1930 



28 NORTHERN CITIES 



NEGRO AS 
% OF TOTAL 

20 



THOUSANDS OF NEGROES 
100 200 300 



NEGRO AS 
% OF TOTAL 

20 



THOUSANDS OF NEGROES 

100 200 300 



NEW YORK, N.Y. 
CHICAGO, ILL 
PHILADELPHIA, PA 
BALTIMORE, MD. 
WASHINGTON, D C 
DETROIT, MICH. 
ST. LOUIS, MO. 
CLEVELAND, OHIO 
PITTSBURGH, PA 
CINCINNATI, OHIO 
INDIANAPOLIS, IND. 
NEWARK, N J 
KANSAS CITY, MO. 
COLUMBUS, OHIO 




BOSTON, MASS. 
KANSAS CITY, KAN 
GARY, IND. 
DAYTON, OHIO 
ATLANTIC CITY, N J 
YOUNGSTOWN, OHIO 
BUFFALO, NY 
TOLEDO, OHIO 
JERSEY CITY, N.J. 
WILMINGTON, DEL. 
EAST ST LOUIS, ILL. 
CAMDEN, N J. 
OMAHA, NEB 
AKRON, OHIO 



SOUTHERN CITIES 



NEGRO AS X OF TOTAL 

60 40 20 



THOUSANDS 
OF NEGROES 

100 200 



NEGRO AS % OF TOTAL 

60 40 20 



THOUSANDS 
OF NEGROES 

100 200 




NEW ORLEANS, LA 
BIRMINGHAM, ALA 
MEMPHIS, TENN. 
ATLANTA, GA. 
HOUSTON, TEX. 
RICHMOND, VA 
JACKSONVILLE, FLA. 
LOUISVILLE, KY. 
NORFOLK, VA 
NASHVILLE, TENN 
SAVANNAH, GA 
DALLAS, TEX 
CHATTANOOGA, TENN 
WINSTON SALEM, N C 
MONTGOMERY, ALA 
CHARLESTON, S.C. 
SHREVEPORT, LA 
CHARLOTTE, N.C. 
MIAMI, FLA 
MOBILE, ALA. 
AUGUSTA, GA 
MACON, GA 
FORT WORTH, TEX 
TAMPA, FLA 
LITTLE ROCK, ARK 






i^mmmmm 



COLUMBIA, s c. 
JACKSON, MISS 
PORTSMOUTH, VA 
DURHAM, N C 
BEAUMONT, TEX 
SAN ANTONIO, TEX 
KNOXVILLE, TENN 
TULSA, OKLA 
OKLAHOMA CITY 
ASHEVILLE, N C 
COLUMBUS, GA 
GREENSBORO, N C 
NEWPORT NEWS, VA 
GALVESTON, TEX 
WILMINGTON, N C 
LEXINGTON, KY 
PETERSBURG, VA 
RALEIGH, N C 
ROANOKE, VA 
VICKSBURG, MISS 
BESSEMER, ALA 
MERIDIAN, MISS. 
GREENVILLE, S.C 
BATON ROUGE, LA 
MONROE, LA 
PORT ARTHUR, TEX 



SOURCE 

U S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE , NEGROES IN THE UNITED STATES. 
1920- 1932, (WASHINGTON, C , 1934 ), P 55 



64 



FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION 
DIVISION OF ECONOMICS 8 STATISTICS 



the country. Because no northern or eastern cities 
with large nonwhite populations, except Cleveland, 
are included in our 64-city sample, it is heavily 
weighted by the large nonwhite population of 
southern cities. Since we are concerned with arriv- 
ing at the degree of concentration of nonwhite per- 
sons in different cities and not, primarily, the differ- 
ences between northern and southern cities, this 
weighting in favor of the South gives proper atten- 
tion to cities which contain, proportionately, greater 
segments of nonwhite persons. 

Not wishing to ignore northern cities which contain 
large numbers of other than white races, however, 
table XXI compares the distribution of non whites in 



enumeration districts with different concentrations 
of nonwhites in 5 northern and 5 southern cities. 
Enumeration districts are the only units of measure- 
ment available for Chicago, 111., and somewhat larger 
units — census tracts — are available for Manhattan, 
N. Y. All other cities in this table are based on 
enumeration districts for purposes of comparison. 
These districts vary in si2;e from 3 to 20 blocks and 
average figures are used for each district; census 
tracts are somewhat larger and are also average 
figures. In such areas there may, of course, be 
considerable variation in the density of nonwhite 
occupancy, and complete nonwhite occupancy occurs 
less frequently than when blocks are used. 



Table XXI. — Distribution of J^onwhite Occupancy in Selected Cities fry Enumeration Districts in 1934 



Citv 



Northern: 

Chicago, 111 

Manhattan, N. Y. 
Cleveland, Ohio . . 
Indianapolis, Ind . 
Washington, D. C 

Southern : 

Jacksonville, Fla. . . 
Shreveport, La. . . . 
Richmond, Va 
Birmingham, Ala . . 
Greensboro, N. C 



Nonwhite population 



Number 



217, 625 

1 56, 171 

69, 988 

40, 409 
137, 875 

49, 420 
27, 845 
44, 084 
95, 663 
13,820 



Percent 
of total 



6.7 
'11.5 

8.4 
11.8 
27.8 



38.1 
37.2 
25.6 
40.2 

27.3 



Distribution of nonwhite population in enumeration districts 



50.0 per- 
cent or 
more 
nonwhite 



90.4 
75.8 
75.8 
73.4 
66.4 

89.6 

77.3 
77.0 
76.2 
69.3 



10.0 per- 
cent to 
49.9 
percent 
nonwhite 



4.7 
17.7 
19.0 
20.5 
31. 1 



9. 1 
21.5 
21.4 
21.7 
25.6 



1.0 per- 

percent to 

9.9 

percent 
nonwhite 



3.7 
4.8 
3.6 
5.7 
2.2 

1.2 
1.2 
1.5 
2.0 
5.0 



Less than 
1.0 percent 
nonwhite 



1.2 

1.7 

1.6 

.4 

.3 

. 1 

.03 
. 1 
. 1 
. 1 



All enumer- 
ation 
districts 
containing 
nonwhite 



100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 

100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 



1 Number of families by census tracts. 

Source: U. S. Department of Commerce, Real Property Inventories, 1934, and Works Progress Administration, Real Property Surveys, 1934. 



With the common standard of enumeration dis- 
tricts, the degree of nonwhite concentration appears 
to be approximately as great in the 5 large northern 
cities as in the 5 southern cities with large nonwhite 
population. In Chicago, nonwhite persons num- 
bered 217,625 but comprised only 6.7 percent of the 
total population in 1934. Over 90 percent of the 
nonwhite population, however, lived in enumera- 
tion districts where 50.0 percent or more of the 
population were nonwhites. In Manhattan, where 
56,171 nonwhite families comprised only 11.5 per- 
cent of all families, 76 percent of the nonwhite fam- 
ilies lived in such enumeration districts. In south- 
ern cities with large nonwhite populations a similar 
picture is presented. Thus, in Jacksonville, where 



49,420 persons or 38.1 percent of the population 
were of a race other than white in 1934, 90 percent 
of the nonwhite population lived in enumeration 
districts where 50.0 percent or more of the persons 
were not of the white race. In Richmond, Va., 
25.6 percent of the population represented 44,084 
nonwhite persons and 77 percent of them lived in 
such enumeration districts. 

Returning to our 64 city sample, table XXII 
shows the distribution of nonwhites in bloc\s with 
different concentrations of nonwhites in each city. 
The cities have been arrayed in groups of 8 in order 
of the percentage of nonwhite races to the total 
population in each city. Because blocks afford closer 
examination than enumeration districts, the distri- 



65 



Table XXII. — The Proportion of T^onwhites and Their Distribution in Blocks Grouped by Degree of J\[onwhite 

Concentration in 64 Cities in 1934 



Location 



Total num- 
ber nonwhite 
race, 1934 



Charleston, S. C 26, 814 

Birmingham, Ala ! 95, 663 



Jackson, Miss 
Jacksonville, Fla . 
Shreveport, La . . 
Atlanta, Ga . . . . 
Columbia, S. C . . 
Baton Rouge, La 



Average . 



Austin, Tex 

Greensboro, N. C . 
Little Rock, Ark . 
Asheville, N. C . . 
Richmond, Va . . . 

Dallas, Tex 

Phoenix, Ariz. . . . 
Knoxville, Tenn . . 



Average . 



Paducah, Ky 

Indianapolis, Ind. . 
Wilmington, Del . . 

Topeka, Kans 

Wichita Falls, Tex . 
Cleveland, Ohio . . . 
Frederick, Md. . . . 
Pueblo, Colo 



Average . 



San Diego, Calif 

Sacramento, Calif 

Trenton, N. J 

Wichita, Kans 

St. Joseph, Mo 

Albuquerque, N. Mex . 

Hagerstown, Md 

Oklahoma City, Okla . . 



Average . 



16, 960 
49, 420 
27, 845 
92, 468 
14, 578 
8,268 



Proportion of 
nonwhites in 
total popula- 
tion, 1934 



15, 894 
13, 820 
26, 076 
11,959 
44, 084 
43, 072 
6,802 
15, 460 



4,486 

40, 407 

11,201 

6,868 

3,734 

69, 138 

1,158 

3,028 



9,101 
5,107 
6,739 
5,415 
3,224 
1,215 
1,247 
6,496 



Percent 

44.8 
40.2 
38.2 
38.2 
37 2 
35.2 
33.2 
29.3 



Proportion of total 
population in 1930 



Negroes 



37.0 



27.4 
27.3 
27.0 
27.0 
25.3 
17-7 
15.9 
15.5 



22.9 



14.3 

11.8 

11. 1 

10.6 

10. 1 

8.4 

8.3 

7.4 



10.3 



6.5 
6.4 
6. 1 
5.6 
4.9 
4.6 
4.2 
4.2 



5.3 



Percent 

45. 1 
38.2 

40.2 
37.2 
35.5 
33.3 
37.8 
34.7 



Other non- 
white 



37.8 



18.6 
26.2 
24.1 
28.4 
29.0 
14.9 
4.9 
16.2 



20.3 



20. 1 

12. 1 

11.3 

9.0 

9.9 

8.0 

10.7 

2.6 



10.5 



1.8 
1.2 
6.5 
5.1 
5.0 
1.7 
4.9 
7.9 



4.3 



Percent 

0.04 
.02 
.01 
.03 
. 19 
.02 
.04 
.02 



Distribution of nonwhite population in blocks 



100 per- 
cent non- 
white 



.04 



9.49 
.01 
.03 
.01 
.04 

2.31 
16.41 
.004 



3.5 



.01 

.04 

.05 

2.75 

1.68 

. 16 

.01 

7.31 



1.5 



7.60 
8.96 

.05 
1.05 

.56 
3.14 

.02 

.91 

2.8 



Percent 
5.0 

47.7 
55. 8 
71.2 
54.3 
47.3 
37.3 
17.1 



42.0 



29.5 
72.2 
27.7 
37.6 
42.3 
22.6 
24.6 
38.4 



36.9 



12.8 
25.9 
3.6 
9.2 
54.6 
2.4 
1.8 
1.7 



14.0 



3.0 

1.0 

12.7 

30.8 

2.7 

9.0 

10.4 

47.5 



14.6 



50-99 per- 
cent non- 
white 



Percent 

55.6 

28.8 
24.4 
17.6 
32.9 
22.9 
37.5 
48.8 



10 49 per- 
cent non- 
white 



33.6 



37.8 
14.4 
28.8 
38.2 
39.5 
23.6 
30.7 
25.8 



29.9 



34.5 
26. 1 
29.9 
23.9 
2.5 
40.4 
23.7 
13.7 



24.3 



26.5 

24.2 

17.1 

37.5 
17-2 
8.4 
32.5 
26.7 

23.8 



Percent 
32.7 
12.7 
13.7 
7.4 
7.8 
12.8 
17.4 
25.8 



16.3 



21.4 
10.3 
29.4 
19.3 
13.6 
18.8 
27.2 
21.4 



20.1 



27.1 
23.1 
41.8 
38.3 
15.7 
17.2 
53.5 
64. 1 



35. 1 



45.4 
42.9 
47.0 
18.4 
48.6 
48.0 
43.9 
14.1 



38.5 



Less than 
10 per- 
cent non- 
white 



Percent 

6.7 
10.8 
6. 1 
3.8 
5.0 
17-0 
7-8 
8.3 



8. 1 



11.3 

3. 1 

14. 1 

4.9 

4.6 

35.0 

17.5 

14.4 



13.1 



25.6 
24.9 
24.7 
28.6 
27.2 
40.0 
21.0 
20.5 



26.6 



25. 1 
31.9 
23.2 
13.3 
31.5 
34.6 
13.2 
11-7 



23. 1 



Tota 



Percen t 
100. 
100. 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 



100.0 



100.0 
100.0 
1C0. 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 



100.0 



100.0 
1C0. 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 



100.0 



100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 



100.0 



66 



Table XXII. — The Proportion of J^onwhites and Their Distribution in Bloc\s Grouped by Degree of Nftnwhite 

Concentration in 64 Cities in 1934 — Continued 



Location 



Zanesville, Ohio . . 
Wheeling, W. Va . 

Decatur, 111 

Des Moines, Iowa 

Peoria, 111 

Springfield, Mo. . . 
Williamsport, Pa . . 
Seattle, Wash .... 



Average . 



Providence, R. I . 
St. Paul, Minn . . . 
Casper, Wyo .... 
Lansing, Mich . . 
Waterbury, Conn . 
Butte, Mont . 



Binghamton, N. Y. . . 
Salt Lake City, Utah , 



Average . 



Erie, Pa 

Portland, Oreg. . . . 
Syracuse, N. Y . . . . 
Minneapolis, Minn . 
Worcester, Mass. . . 

Reno, Nev 

Racine, Wis 

Boise, Idaho 



Average . 



Santa Fe, N. Mex . 
Lincoln, Nebr. . . . 
Sioux Falls, S. Dak 
Kenosha, Wis .... 
Burlington, Vt. . . 
Portland, Maine . . 
Nashua, N. H . . . . 
Fargo, N. Dak 



Average . 



Total num- 
ber nonwhite 
race, 1934 



1,296 
2,036 
1,847 
5, 309 
1 3, 224 
1,536 
956 
7,292 



5,137 
3,904 
213 
970 
947 
290 
633 
1,164 



882 

2,325 

1,519 

3,003 

1,034 

102 

384 

113 



47 
393 
155 
201 

57 
136 

60 

31 



Proportion of 
nonwhites in 
total popula- 
tion, 1934 



Percent 

3.9 
3.5 

3.3 
3.3 
3. 1 
2.8 
2.3 
2.3 



3.1 



2.2 
1.5 
1.3 
1.3 
1. 1 
1.0 
.9 
.9 



1.3 



Proportion of total 
population in 1930 



Negroes 



Percent 

4.9 
3.6 
3.4 
3.8 
2 9 
3. 1 
2.0 
.9 



3. 1 



2.2 

1.5 

.9 

1.8 

1.7 

.4 

.9 

.5 



1.2 



1.0 
.5 
.9 
.9 

.7 
.7 
.7 
.4 



.7 



.7 
1.3 
.3 
.4 
.4 
.4 
.2 
. 1 



.5 



Other non- 
white 



Percent 
.01 
.03 
.03 
.29 
.19 
.01 
.02 
3.21 



.5 



.09 
.35 

1.41 
.06 
.05 
.88 
.04 

1.08 



.5 



06 
35 
12 
15 
06 
88 
19 
56 



.5 



5. 11 

.40 
.18 
. 11 
.09 
.07 
.01 
.20 



Distribution of nonwhite population in blocks 



100 per- 
cent non- 
white 



Percent 

4.8 
.5 

.2 
2.2 

.3 
5.7 

2 7 



2.1 



2 

01 

1 



.03 
3.5 

.5 
1. 1 

.6 
1.5 

2.6 



1.2 



.2 



50-99 per- 
cent non- 
white 



Percent 

15.2 
9.6 
14.9 
19. 1 
7.5 
14.6 
23.8 
18.1 



15.4 



10.3 

12.6 

6.2 

7.9 
.4 

1.8 


.9 



5.0 



3.2 
3.8 
16.0 
2. 1 

.6 
1.6 



3.5 





2.2 



.9 


.9 





.5 



10-49 per- 
cent non- 
white 



Percent 

44.6 
32.9 
46.4 
37.3 
39.9 
48.1 
33.3 
42.1 



Less than 

10 per- 
cent non- 
white 



40.5 



47.3 
30.9 
68. 1 
27.8 
35.0 
10.4 
16.9 
14.0 



31.3 



25. 1 
33.4 
47.4 
22.6 
36.6 
40.5 
24.9 
22.9 



31.7 



1.0 
30.8 
52.7 
23.6 

2. 1 
12.3 
45.0 
18.7 



23.3 



Percent 

35.4 
57.0 
38.5 
41.4 
52.3 
31.6 
42.9 
37.1 



42.0 



41.8 
56.4 
25.7 
64.3 
64.6 
87.6 
83. 1 
85.0 



63.6 



74.1 
59.9 
48.3 
60.3 
60.7 
58.0 
74.5 
72.9 



63.6 



Total 



99.0 
67.0 
46. 1 
75.3 
97.9 
86.8 
55.0 
81.3 



76.0 



Percent 
100.0 
100.0 
100. 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 



100. 



100.0 
100. 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 



100.0 



100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 



100.0 



100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 



100.0 



1 1930. 

Source: U. S. Department of Commerce, Real Property Inventories, 1934. U. S. Department of Commerce, Fifteenth Census of the United States, 1930, Vol. II 
(Washington, D. C, 1932), tables 15 and 16 for each State. 



67 



bution has been changed from that used in the pre- 
vious table. We now include a separate column 
for blocks with 100 percent concentration and com- 
bine in 1 column all blocks of less than 10.0 percent 
concentration. It may be noted that, generally, in 
cities with a large proportion of nonwhite persons, 
a large percentage of such persons live in blocks of 
high nonwhite concentration. 

We have already noted, in the comparison in tabic 
XXI, that a high degree of concentration obtains in 
both (1) cities of very large population with a small 
proportion but a large number of nonwhite persons 
and (2) cities with a large percentage and a large 
number of nonwhite persons. Table XXII clearly 
brings out the latter for our 64 city sample and also 
shows that a far smaller degree of concentration 
tends to obtain in cities having a small number of 
nonwhites, or where nonwhites constitute only a 
small proportion of the total population. It also 
shows that in cities with a large nucleus of blocks of 
100 percent nonwhite concentration, there are more 
mixed racial blocks occupied by a high percentage of 
nonwhites than there are in cities that have a small 
proportion of solid nonwhite racial blocks. 

For further analysis, table XXII contains averages 
for each group of 8 cities. Since each group con- 
tains cities with a successively lower proportion 
of nonwhite population, the averages forcefully 
demonstrate that as the percentage of races other 
than white decreases, the extent of concentration in 
blocks likewise decreases. Conversely, the column 
showing the proportion of blocks with the smallest 
concentration increases with a decrease in the per- 
centage of nonwhites in the total population. 

From the evidence presented in tables XXI and 
XXII we may, therefore, suggest the generalisation 
that the degree of nonwhite concentration in any city 
increases directly with the number and proportion of 
nonwhite persons in the population. Either a large 
nonwhite population in absolute numbers, or a high 
proportion of nonwhite persons in the total popula- 
tion is necessary to produce concentrated nonwhite 
areas. Thus, the extent of the segregation or con- 
centration of nonwhite races in American cities 
varies in accordance with the relative percentage of 
nonwhite persons in the total population. 

The question now arises as to the extent to which 
these concentrated ncnwhite blocks are aggregated 
in clusters. Examinaticn of the maps of a number 



of cities delineating nonwhite blocks of different 
degrees of concentration shows a conglomeration of 
highly concentrated nonwhite blocks in broad areas, 
such as the "Black Belt -> " of Chicago and the Harlem 
of New York. In Chicago (fig. 26) as one goes east 
across Cottage Grove Avenue, from Forty-third to 
Fifty-fifth Street one passes frcm an area practically 
100 percent nonwhite to an area that is almost 100 
percent white. The cleavage is sharp and distinct. 
There is no penumbra or scattered fringe of non- 
whites between the two solid sections, but an 
absolute and definite dividing line at Cottage Grove 
Avenue. On the other hand, along Lake Street 
there is a gradual thinning of nonwhite density from 
the central core to the areas surrounding it. 

Similarly in Washington, D. C. (fig. 27), there is a 
central nucleus of blocks almost entirely occupied 
by nonwhites in the area that has its center at 
Seventh Street and Florida Avenue. This area is 
surrounded by a fringe of blocks in which nonwhite 
concentration is smaller. While there is thus a 
gradual transition in density of nonwhite popula- 
tion in the central part of Washington, the non- 
white areas come to an abrupt termination in the 
northwest quarter at Park Road and Monroe Street, 
and at Euclid Street between Sixteenth Street and 
Columbia Road. There are small detached colonies 
in Washington beyond this central nucleus in all 
directions. Outlying nonwhite colonies such as 
Anacostia in Washington, and at Ninety-fifth and 
State Streets in Chicago, are like satellites detached 
from the main mass. 

In southern cities, there is frequently a sharp 
transition between solid nonwhite and solid white 
areas at one street. As one goes east across Grayson 
Street between Livingston and Fortification Streets 
in Jackson, Miss., one passes from blocks occupied 
entirely by nonwhites to those occupied entirely by 
white persons. The racial maps of Richmond, Va., 
Birmingham, Ala., and Norfolk, Va. show similar 
sharp breaks between nonwhite and white areas. 
On the other hand, in Charleston, S. C, the blocks 
occupied by nonwhite persons are interspersed 
among blocks occupied by white persons almost at 
random, and there are few solid racial blocks. 

Thus, in most cities that have a large number of 
nonwhite persons, either absolutely or relatively, 
there is a tendency to establish concentrated non- 
white areas. There are some detached nonwhite 



68 



FIGURE 26 



PATTERN OF NON - WHITE POPULATION 
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 1934 




□ 



LEGEND 

NEGROES AS A PERCENT 
OF TOTAL POPULATION 



LESS THAN I % 
1% TO 19% 
20% TO 49% 
50% TO 79% 
80% TO 100% 




J 



r 



SOURCE NEWCOMB, C. S. , AND LANG, R.O., CENSUS DATA OF THE CITY 

OF CHICAGO, 1934 (CHICAGO, UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS, 1934; 
PP. 686, 687 



FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION 
DIVISION OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS 



69 



FIGURE 27 

PATTERN OF NON - WHITE POPULATION 
WASHINGTON, D. C. 1934 




source: civil works administration, real property inventory 
for the district of columbia, 1934 



FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION 
DIVISION OF ECONOMICS 8 STATISTICS 



70 



colonies and a few nonwhite persons living in a thin 
fringe near the central body, but sharp and distinct 
lines of cleavage between nonwhite and white areas 
are very frequent. 

Where are these large nonwhite areas? Often 
they are located in the oldest part of the city near 
the central business district. The nonwhite areas 
of Richmond, Va., fall almost entirely in the areas 
settled prior to 1900. The nonwhite areas on the 
south side of Chicago and on West Lake Street in 
that city are located in areas settled before 1899. 6 
Harlem in New York City is an area whose nucleus 
was settled as early as 1800 and that was entirely 
built up before 1900. The main nonwhite area of 
Detroit falls within the Grand Boulevard circuit in 
areas occupied by houses before 1910. In Miami, 
Fla., the chief colored section is in a district settled 
by 1921, which is relatively early for Miami. Simi- 
larly in St. Louis, Mo., Kansas City, Mo., Phila- 
delphia, Pa., Baltimore, Md., Pittsburgh, Pa., Louis- 
ville, Ky., and many other cities, the nonwhite areas 
are in the oldest parts of the city. Hence, nonwhite 
races tend to occupy some of the oldest houses in 
American cities. There are also cities like Picayune 
and Natchez, Miss., in which the non whites live 
in an outlying belt surrounding the central part of 
the city. The cities with large central nonwhite 
areas tend to be industrial cities with large popula- 
tions. 

Thus, the extent of concentration of persons of 
races other than white in different sections of the 
country and in the segregated areas of our 64-city 
sample and a relatively limited number of large 
northern cities, has been measured. We have stated 
earlier that, directly, rents are only affected by the 
presence of nonwhites in otherwise white areas 
and that, in areas populated exclusively by one 
race, rents should reflect the character of housing 
similarly whether the population is white or some 

6 Compare racial maps and settled area maps — for Richmond, fig. 17 in pt. I. 
ch. Ill, and fig. 33 in the Map Supplement; for Chicago, fig. 26 in this chapter 
and fig. 35 in pt. II, ch. II. 



other race. But what are actual qualitative differ- 
ences in the housing of different racial groups in 
American cities? 

Data on rents in the dwelling units in the 64-city 
sample reveal that the average rent of dwelling units 
in blocks occupied exclusively by the white race 
was $23.08, in blocks occupied by a mixture of 
white and other races was $14.90, and in blocks 
occupied exclusively by nonwhite persons was 
$9.34. This gradation of rent reveals qualitative 
differences of housing as between white and non- 
white races. The differences are borne out by the 
relative condition of structures in blocks occupied 
by white, mixed, and nonwhite persons. Thus, 12.2 
percent of the structures in the 85,478 blocks occu- 
pied exclusively by white persons were in need of 
major repairs in 1934 or were unfit for use. In the 
10,288 mixed racial blocks, 38.6 percent of the struc- 
tures were in this poor condition, and in the 5,004 
blocks occupied exclusively by nonwhite races, the 
proportion of such structures rose to 50.9 percent. 

Such figures compel us to conclude that other 
than white racial groups in American cities dwell 
largely in sections marked by low-quality housing. 
These are reflected in relative gradations of rent, 
which are representative of all those varying factors 
constituting the character of human habitations. 
If the millennium in housing arrives, and all classes 
of the population are provided with dwellings 
having none of the adverse characteristics dwelt 
upon earlier in this chapter, rents will be more 
reflective of economic and other imponderable 
factors. Since conditions . of adverse housing do 
exist, however, we have attempted to show in this 
chapter the extent of their presence in a representa- 
tive sample of American cities. Especial attention 
was given to a statistical analysis of the concentra- 
tion of racial groups because of their importance 
in the structure of the American city. As we have 
just shown, their economic circumstances compel 
them to dwell, for the most part, in sections marked 
by low-quality housing. 



71 



Chapter VI 



The Pattern of Residential Rent Areas 
in American Cities 



H 



.AVING suggested techniques for use in anal- 
ysis of the residential areas of American cities and 
examined the prevalence of some factors in a large 
sample of American cities, we are now in a position 
to discuss the patterns formed by urban residential 
areas. Both here and in part II, we will find useful 
the basic tenet of the alternative technique sug- 
gested in chapter IV — i. e., a single factor, rent, is 
representative of a series of other housing factors. 
Since the average rent of dwelling units in a block 
reflects the characteristics of the block which can 
and cannot be measured, patterns of rent may be 
fully relied upon to serve as a guide to the structure 
of residential neighborhoods. 

First, however, the question arises as to the dis- 
tribution of blocks in different rental ranges. Is there, 
in any city, an equal number of blocks with high, 
intermediate, and low average block rents? Or do 
they all form a regular distribution in rigid system- 
atic conformity? In chapter III, figure 11 showed 
the distribution of rents in certain cities of all units 
within blocks falling in the same rental group- 
here we are concerned with the distribution of the 
blocks themselves among the several rental groups. 

The percentage distribution among the several ren- 
tal groups of the blocks in 25 widely scattered cities 
of varying size is shown in table XXIII. The figures 
reveal wide differences among the several cities in the 
relative proportion of blocks in high, intermediate 
and low rental groups at the time of the survey in 
1934. In Wilmington, Del., nearly 12 percent of the 
total number of residential blocks had an average 
rent of $50 per month or more. Nearly 30 percent 
of the blocks in that city also commanded an average 
rent of between $30 and $49.99 monthly, but only 1 
percent of the blocks had monthly rents of less than 



$10. Pueblo, Colo., on the other hand, had only 0.1 
percent of its blocks in the highest rental range and 
over 80 percent in the two lowest rental groups of 
less than $20 per month. Wichita Falls, Tex., and 
Birmingham, Ala., had even a greater proportion of 
blocks with average monthly rents of less than $20- 
nearly 87 percent and over 84 percent, respectively. 
Both Syracuse, N. Y., and Waterbury, Conn., had 
only 0.1 percent of their blocks with average rentals 
of less than $10 per month. Of the two cities, the 
blocks in Syracuse were the more evenly distributed 
among the intermediate rental groups — blocks in 
Waterbury were greater, proportionately, in the 
lower rental ranges and lesser in the higher rental 
groups. Both cities, however, had a relatively large 
proportion of blocks, with average rents of $50 or 
more per month. 

The range of the proportion of blocks in each of 
the rental groups among the 25 cities tabulated is 
considerably varied — with the greatest variation 
in the lowest rental group. Blocks in these cities 
with average rents of less than $10 per month con- 
stituted from 0.1 percent to 51.7 percent of all resi- 
dential blocks with a median of 12.2 percent. In 
the rental group containing average block rents of 
$10 to $19.99 per month, the lowest proportion was 
21.7 percent and the highest 59.8 percent with a 
median of 39.2 percent. Respective percentages in 
the $20 to $29.99 monthly rental group were 9.4 
percent, 45.7 percent, and 23.6 percent; in the $30 
to $49.99 monthly rental group — 2.1 percent, 29.6 
percent, and 14.0 percent; and in the $50 or more 
category — 0.1 percent, 11.9 percent, and 3.5 per- 
cent. Percentages in each group ranged from a 52 
percent variation in the lowest rental group to a 
12 percent variation in the highest rental group. 



72 



Table XXIII . — Distribution of Residential Bloc\s by 
Average Bloc\ Rents in 25 Cities, 1934 



City 



Wilmington, Del . . . 

Richmond, Va 

Minneapolis, Minn . 

Phoenix, Ariz 

Syracuse, N. Y 

Indianapolis, Ind 
Waterbury, Conn . . . 

St. Paul, Minn 

Greensboro, N. C . . . 
Peoria, 111 

San Diego, Calif. . . . 

Seattle, Wash 

Oklahoma City, Okla 
Baton Rouge, La ... . 
Huntington, W. Va . 

Atlanta, Ga 

Dallas, Tex 

Lansing, Mich 

Shreveport, La 

Cleveland, Ohio ... 

Sioux Falls, S. Dak . . 
Wichita Falls, Tex . . 
Jacksonville, Fla .... 
Birmingham, Ala 
Pueblo, Colo 



Distribution among re 


$50 or 


$30 to 


$20 to 


more 


$49.99 


$29.99 
32.2 


11.6 


29.6 


8.5 


23.7 


22.3 


7.1 


25.9 


40.5 


6.7 


16. 1 


18.8 


6.5 


26.0 


45.7 


6.3 


12.7 


22.5 


5.4 


18.0 


37.2 


5.0 


23.4 


37 1 


4.4 


14.8 


12.5 


4. 1 


20.4 


23.6 


4.0 


14.4 


41.3 


3.6 


13.2 


24.2 


3.5 


12.9 


27. 1 


3.0 


20.2 


28.3 


2.9 


12.5 


20. 1 


2.8 


11.8 


17.3 


2.4 


14.0 


31. 1 


2.0 


8.3 


18.5 


2.0 


13.5 


20.6 


1.8 


12. 1 


43.1 


1.7 


19.2 


34.4 


1.6 


2.1 


9.4 


1.6 


7.5 


20.0 


1.0 


3.8 


11.0 


. 1 


5.2 


14.3 



$10 to 
$19.99 



25. 3 
33.5 
25.4 
40.5 
21.7 

40.7 
39.2 
32.8 

34. 1 

48.7 

36.0 
53.5 
37.2 
33.8 
53.2 

46.9 
42.2 
59.8 
35.9 
41.8 

39.2 

35. 1 
39.5 
43.7 
49. 1 



$9.99 

and 

under 



1.0 
12.2 

1.2 

18.0 

. 1 

17.8 

. 1 

1.7 

34.2 

3. 3 

4.3 

5.6 

19.4 

14. 7 

11.3 

21.2 
10.4 
11.4 
28. 1 
1.2 

5. 5 
51.7 
31.5 
40.6 
31.3 



Source: U. S. Dept. of Commerce, Real Property Inventories, 1934, and 
Federal Housing Administration, Real Property Survey, Huntington, W. Va. 
1935. 

Generally, northern cities in this group of 25 cities 
tended to have a greater proportion of blocks in 
the higher rent groups than the southern cities. 
Every city in the list is represented in every rent 
group, but there may be cities having a complete 
absence of blocks with either very high or very low 
average rents. The tendency is toward a dis- 
persion among the several rent groups. Skewed dis- 
tributions will appear, however, in almost every case 
because of those local factors tending to distort the 
representation toward either a high or low over-all 
average rent for the entire city. 

We are primarily interested, however, in the pat- 
terns which are formed in cities by the distribution 
of blocks of different average rent. The pattern of 
distribution of the rent areas within cities is one of 
the most important of all from the standpoint of 
market analysis, mortgage investment, public wel- 



fare work and human ecology. If the higher income 
groups live mainly in high-rent areas, then firms 
selling articles purchased only by those groups 
should concentrate their effort in such sections. If 
the value of homes is most stable in areas where 
other homes are of similar value, then it is important 
for the mortgage investor to be familiar with the 
location of areas of different rental levels. If relief 
cases are likewise concentrated in low-rent areas, 
then it is important that public welfare agencies 
give special attention to such neighborhoods. 
Finally, if there is a pattern according to which the 
different income groups segregate themselves into 
definite areas, then the student of human ecology is 
furnished with the evidence of the pattern according 
to which social groups array themselves in the human 
environment. 

There are many possible patterns of the distribu- 
tion of blocks graded by average rentals. The 
rental blocks might be scattered at random through- 
out the city without any plafi: Or, on the other 
hand, all the highest rental blbcks might be concen- 
trated in one compact area, and the low-rent blocks 
might be similarly aggregated in another section of 
the city. Whether there is a random distribution 
or a segregation of residential blocks by rents, or 
whether there is a succession of belts ranging from 
the lowest rents at the center to the highest rents 
on the periphery, or some other pattern of distribu- 
tion of rental areas, is revealed by a study of block 
data maps which have been drawn for 142 cities. 

There is no geometric pattern that can be super- 
imposed upon a city to determine the location of 
high and low rental areas. Each urban center has a 
pattern of rent areas that is to a certain extent 
unique. No two cities have high-rent areas of the 
same size or shape or in the same location with re- 
spect to the center of the city. Topography, 
rapidity of urban growth, location of industries and 
transportation lines, the movement of leaders of 
society, all produce different rental area patterns. 

There is, nevertheless, a general pattern of rent 
areas that applies to all cities. This pattern is not 
a random distribution. It is not in the form of 
sharply defined rectangular areas, with blocks in 
each rental group occupying completely segregated 
segments. It is not in the form of successive con- 
centric circles, with the lowest rent area near the 
center and the highest on the periphery. 



73 



Study of the maps of 142 cities leads to the fol- 
lowing observations. In every city there are one or 
more clusters of blocks in which the average rents 
paid for residences are the highest in the city. From 
these high-rent poles, there is a gradation downward 
on all sides, with successive rings of blocks of lower 
and lower average rent until the worst slum in the 
city is reached. There is frequently no sharp divid- 
ing line between blocks of different average rents. 
The blocks do not form solid geometric figures. 
Instead of the different rental areas changing 
abruptly, there are frequently transition zones, in 
which there is an intermingling of the higher rental 
blocks with blocks in which the average rent of the 
residences is slightly lower. 

In some cities there is just one main high rent area. 
In small cities or cities of slow growth, this may be 
located near the center of the city as in Charleston, 
S. C, Zanesville, Ohio, Santa Fe, N. Mex., and 
Portland, Maine. 

In other cities, the highest rental area is located on 
the periphery of one sector of the city, as in Wichita 
and Topeka, Kans., Des Moines, Iowa, Washington, 
D. C, Atlanta, Ga., Wilmington, Del., Greensboro, 
N. C, and Akron, Ohio. In these cities, there is 
a gradation downward from these high rent poles 
on one side of the city toward the lowest rents on 
the periphery of the opposite side of the city. Thus, 
in Washington, D. C, there is a gradation down- 
ward from the high rent area between Massachusetts 
and Connecticut Avenues in the northwest quad- 
rant, as one goes northeast, southeast, or southwest. 
In Topeka, Kans., the downward progression of 
rents extends from the high rent pole on the western 
periphery to the low rent areas on the eastern city 
limits. In Wichita, Kans., the high rent pole is 
on the northern city limits, and there is a downward 
progression of rents from there to the periphery on 
the south, east, and west. In Des Moines, Iowa, 
there is the same downward gradient in rents from 
the western high rent pole to the eastern city limits. 

Thus, in many cities there is a circular or rectangu- 
lar area of a few blocks in which is located the peak 
rental area from which rents of all other blocks 
slope downward. Apparently, each income group 
tries to get as close as possible to the next higher 
group in the economic scale. 

In a number of cities there are several high rent 
poles, as in Syracuse, N. Y., where there are high 



rent nuclei on the north, east, and west sides, with 
downward gradients to the low rent areas in the 
low ground between them along the railroad tracks. 
In Little Rock, Ark., and Oklahoma City, Okla., 
there are a number of nuclei of high rent areas, 
each surrounded by blocks with successively lower 
average rents for the dwelling units. All of these 
high rent blocks are in the same general section of 
the city, however. In areas where the average 
rent for structures in most of the blocks is less than 
$20 a month, there are a few blocks with average 
rents up to $30 a month, but very few in the higher 
rental groups. 

In some cities, there is a wedge or radial develop- 
ment of the high rent area extending in a sector 
almost from the center of the city to the periphery. 
Thus, in Richmond, Va., there are high rent areas 
along the length of Monument Avenue, extending 
in a widening sector to the periphery, and another 
high rent area extending northward along Chamber- 
layne Street to the city limits. There are high rent 
sectors from the center to the city limits in Water- 
bury, Conn., Trenton, N. J., and Worcester, Mass. 
In Dallas, Tex., and Indianapolis, Ind., there are 
likewise high rent areas extending along the axes 
of principal radial streets. 

Thus the high rent areas, although of extremely 
limited extent, are the peaks or ridges toward 
which all other rental areas slope upward. The 
intermediate rental areas usually surround or adjoin 
these high rent areas, and hence their shapes are 
often regulated by those of the high rent areas. 

The lower rental areas, being of much larger ex- 
tent, may extend from the center of the city to the 
periphery on one side of the city. The lowest rent 
area may extend through the center of the city to the 
periphery on both sides as in Jackson, Miss. It may 
occupy one entire half of the city, as in the case of 
the south side of Greensboro, N. C. The low rent 
areas are not located in the central slum area alone. 
Frequently, as in Wichita, Kans., Wichita Falls, 
Tex., Detroit, Mich., Richmond, Va., Jacksonville, 
Fla., St. Joseph, Mo., Springfield, Mo., and Wilming- 
ton, Del., rents grade downward to the periphery in 
the low rent sectors. 

The rental area map of Richmond, Va., in figure 12 
(by blocks), reveals both the relative concentration 
and the pattern of rent areas in one American city. 
Here are seen wedge-shaped groups of the high rent 



74 



blocks, radiating north along Chamberlayne Street 
and northwest along Monument Avenue, sur- 
rounded by blocks falling in the next lower rental 
group. There is not a perfect concentration of the 
highest rental blocks in one compact area but an 
intermingling of blocks in the highest rental group 
($50 a month or over) with the next highest rental 
group ($30 to $49.99 a month). As one moves away 
from the center of the highest rental area, the pro- 
portion of blocks in which rents are $30 to $49.99 
increases. Around this area there is a fringe of 
blocks where rents average from $20 to $29.99 a 
month; and they, in turn, intermingle on the border 
with blocks where rents average from $10 to $19.99 
a month. These blocks with rentals of $10 to $19.99 
a month, in turn, verge off into the lowest rental 
area, which winds through the river valleys in the 
central part of the city. 

Only maps which show rents by individual blocks 
can show accurately the gradation of rents down- 
ward from the high rent areas. Such maps are the 
primary sources of data from which other more 
generalised maps are derived. In developing a 
theory of the spatial distribution of rent areas in 
American cities, however, the data may be pre- 
sented in a form that will show the main tendencies 
without the minutiae of detail. For this purpose, 
so-called rental area maps have been prepared. In 
these maps, the blocks of similar rent are grouped 
together in relatively homogeneous areas, but usually 
some blocks are included that do not fall in exactly 
the same rental group. Hence the rental area maps 
smooth out to a certain extent the scattered appear- 
ance of the array of individual blocks. While such 
rental area maps do not show the intermingling of 
the blocks of different rental groups in the transition 
zones between the clusters of the highest rental 
blocks and those lower in the rental scale, they do 
bring out in sharp relief the location of the main 
rental areas. 

Accordingly, the rental area maps of 19 selected 
cities are presented in the Map Supplement 1 for the 
purpose of showing in brief compass the main 
tendencies in the location of rent areas in American 
cities. Examination of those rental area maps shows 
wide variation in size, shape, and location of the 
rental areas in the different cities. Nevertheless, 
certain tendencies of city structure are clearly 
portrayed. 

1 Figs. 3-21, see pp. 138//. 



1. The highest rental area is in every case located 
in one or more sectors on the side of the city. Ex- 
cept for Oklahoma City, Okla., and Charleston, S. 
C, these high rent sections are on the periphery of 
one or more sectors of the city. The high rent area 
is on the northern periphery of Atlanta, Ga., and 
Indianapolis, Ind. It is in a northeast sector of 
Dallas, Tex., Jackson, Miss., and Providence, R. I. 
It is near the western city limits of Des Moines, 
Iowa, Knoxville, Tenn., and Topeka, Kans. It is 
on the eastern boundary of the settled area of Salt 
Lake City, Utah. The high rent areas are on the 
southern periphery of Jacksonville, Fla., and the 
southeastern edge of Minneapolis, Minn., and Reno, 
Nev. In Cleveland, Ohio, the main high grade 
residential area is on the eastern periphery in Shaker 
Heights, but there is likewise a high rent area in 
Lakewood extending along Lake Erie to the west. 
In Charleston, S. C, the main high rent area is lo- 
cated on the Battery near the place of original set- 
tlement. In Richmond, Va., high rent areas extend 
northward along Chamberlayne Street and north- 
west along Monument Avenue. In Peoria, 111., one 
high rent area is located on the northern periphery, 
and another one along a bluff, northwest of the busi- 
ness center. 

2. High rent areas take the form of wedges ex- 
tending in certain sectors along radial lines from the 
center to the periphery as in Indianapolis, Ind., 
Reno, Nev., Providence, R. I., Dallas, Tex., Rich- 
mond, Va., Trenton, N. J., and Jackson, Miss. In 
other cities, the high rent section takes the form of 
a rectangular or circular area on the periphery of one 
sector. This is true of the high rent areas in Shaker 
Heights in Cleveland, Ohio, in Salt Lake City, 
Utah, Des Moines, Iowa, Topeka, Kans., Peoria, 
111., Jacksonville, Fla., and Minneapolis, Minn. 

3. Intermediate rental areas, or areas falling just 
below the highest rental areas, tend to surround the 
highest rental areas or to adjoin such areas on one 
side. This is true of every one of the cities for which 
rental area maps are presented except Providence, 
R. I. 

4. Intermediate rental areas on the periphery of 
other sectors of the city besides the ones in which 
the highest rental areas are located are found in 
certain cities. Thus, on the periphery of certain 
sectors in Atlanta, Ga., Dallas, Tex., Minneapolis, 
Minn., Indianapolis, Ind., and Providence, R. I., 



163253—39- 



75 



there are intermediate rental areas that represent 
the peak rental areas of the lower grade sectors. 

5. Low rent areas extending from the center to 
the edge of settlement on one side or in certain sec' 
tors of the city are found in practically every city. 
There may be a low rent wedge extending entirely 
through the center of the city as in Jackson, Miss., 
or from the center to the periphery on one side or 
sector as in Atlanta, Ga., Trenton, N. J., Des 
Moines, Iowa, Peoria, 111., Oklahoma City, Okla., 
Indianapolis, Ind., Seattle, Wash., Minneapolis, 
Minn., Providence, R. I., Salt Lake City, Utah, and 
Knoxville, Tenn. Or a low rent area near the center 
of the city with an intervening higher rent area 
may be matched by an area with equally low rent 
on the periphery of the same sector as in Dallas, 
Tex., Jacksonville, Fla., and Cleveland, Ohio. 

One or more sectors of a city thus acquire a low 
rent character, and in these sectors there is no 
tendency toward an upward gradation of rents from 
the center to the periphery. 

Since observations for these 19 cities also apply to 
all of the 142 cities for which block data maps are 
available and which have been closely studied, it is 
clearly apparent that the concentric circle theory of 
city structure is defective. The rental area maps 
fail to reveal a series of concentric circles of rent 
areas with a gradation of rents upward from the 
center to the periphery in all the sections of the 
city. The upward gradation is confined to certain 
sectors in which high rent or intermediate rental 
areas are located, but there are always sectors in 
which there is no such upward gradation of rents. 

It may be urged, however, that the concentric 
circle theory relates to an ideal pattern of city 
structure, and that if the rent areas of a city were 
fitted into a theoretical framework of concentric 
circles, a general tendency toward an upward grada- 
tion of rents from the center to the periphery of a 
city might be observed. Accordingly, the rent 
areas of 30 cities have been arranged in an ideal 
pattern of concentric circles in figure 28. 

The high rent areas in all of the cities there shown 
except Oklahoma City, Okla., and St. Joseph, Mo., 
are located on or near or extend to the periphery of 
the city in one or more sectors. In none of the 30 
cities does the high rent area occupy more than one- 
quarter of the concentric circle on the periphery of 
the city. The inner circle at the center is pre- 



dominant ly a low rent area, but in every city this 
low rent character is extended from the center to 
the periphery in one or more sectors of the city. 
Hence, even when the rental area data are put into 
a framework of concentric circles, there is revealed 
no general gradation upward from the center to the 
periphery m all sectors of the city. 

From the evidence presented, therefore, it may 
be concluded that rent areas in American cities 
tend to conform to a pattern of sectors rather than 
of concentric circles. The highest rent areas of a 
city tend to be located in one or more sectors of the 
city. There is a gradation of rentals downward 
from these high rental areas in all directions. Inter- 
mediate rental areas, or those ranking next to the 
highest rental areas, adjoin the high rent area on 
one or more sides, and tend to be located in the 
same sectors as the high rental areas. Low rent 
areas occupy other entire sectors of the city from 
the center to the periphery. On the outer edge of 
some of the high rent areas are intermediate rental 
areas. 

In small cities or cities of slow growth, the highest 
rental areas may occupy parts of sectors directly 
adjacent to the business center. As in the larger 
cities, the low rent sectors extend from the center 
to the periphery on one side of the city. 

The sector theory of the location of rent areas in 
American cities here outlined is supported by the 
block-by-block data of 142 cities. In this large 
group, no city has been found in which there is an 
upward gradation of rents from the center to the 
periphery in all directions. There is an upward 
gradation of rents in the one or more sectors in 
which the highest rental area is located, but there 
are also low rent sectors in which there is no increase 
in rents as one goes from the center to the periphery 
of the city. 

This sector theory of rent areas is of fundamental 
importance in analyzing neighborhoods in American 
cities for the purpose of locating markets for retail 
sales or for determining the risk in residential mort- 
gages. Since the high rent area occupies only a 
limited portion of the periphery of the city and not 
its entire outer circumference, it is necessary to 
determine by the examination of each individual city 
where this high rent area is located. 

If the concentric circle theory of the location of 
rent areas be accepted literally, all points on the 



76 



FIGURE 28 



THEORETICAL PATTERN OF DISTRIBUTION OF RENT AREAS 

IN 30 AMERICAN CITIES 



LESS THAN $10 



$10. - $19.99 



$20. $29.99 



$30. $49.99 |-:;: : -::x-;1 $50. a OVER 




ST. JOSEPH MO. 



ST. PAUL MINN. 



TOPEKA KANS. 



TRENTON N.J. 



WICHITA FALLS TEX. 



SOURCE: US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

REAL PROPERTY INVENTORIES, 1931 



11 



FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION 
DIVISION OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS 



periphery of the city are of equal importance as high 
rent areas, and no detailed examination of any city 
would he necessary. Since the high rent areas are 
located in the periphery of only one or more sectors, 
however, and are not distributed along the entire 
outer circumference of the city, it is necessary to 



ascertain for each city the location of the high rent 
sector. Therefore the forces that determine which 
one of the many sectors of the city will become the 
high rent sector are of vital importance to the 
analyst of city growth. These forces will be 
discussed in part \l. 



78 



/ 



Part II 

THE GROWTH 

OF RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS 

IN AMERICAN CITIES 



Chapter I 

The Influence of the Rate of City Growth 
on Neighborhood Growth 



T, 



HE city, at a given moment of time, has a rigid 
form. Its various component parts occupy definite 
locations. The slum and fashionable residential 
areas, the central and outlying business districts, the 
parks, and the factories, all occupy distinct areas on 
the urban map. The value of every parcel of real 
estate in the city is affected by its position with 
reference to these different areas. City planning or 
zoning, slum clearance, and market surveys all re' 
quire a knowledge of the patterns formed by types 
of neighborhoods within the urban community. 
Techniques for analysis of city structures and the 
different patterns formed by urban residential areas 
were discussed in part I. 

The structure of a city, however, does not remain 
static. The pattern of neighborhoods and land uses 
established at one period of time changes as the city 
grows. The rate of movement of neighborhoods, or 
the time required for a residential section to change 
its character, varies greatly from city to city and in 
any one city from one period to another. Because 
the forces that determine the speed of neighborhood 
transition are not clearly understood, there is often 
great apprehension that the changes in neighborhood 
character taking place at certain times will embrace 
entire urban areas. Hence, it is of vital importance 
that the dynamic forces producing movements or 
shifts in the boundaries of existing types of neigh- 
borhoods be analyzed. The second part of this 
monograph is accordingly devoted to the study of 
those forces that cause changes in city structure. 

It is well known that in some cities certain areas 
retain the same character for long periods of time. 
In other cities there is a quick and sudden transition 
in the land uses or residential occupancy of an area. 
In general, the speed with which a residential area 
of a given type shifts to a new location appears to 



vary with the rate of population growth of the city. 

In a static city, with little or no population 
growth, the residents may continue to live m the 
same houses and to shop at the same stores for long 
periods of time. There is no influx of newcomers 
to invade established residential areas and little or 
no expansion of stores or factories that will tend to 
cause change in existing land uses. While it is con' 
ceivable that residents may move to new locations 
and leave their old homes, there is no pressure to 
cause them to migrate; inertia and family ties are 
frequently sufficient to keep them rooted to a fixed 
spot for generations. In such cities, the pattern of 
land uses and neighborhoods remains unchanged for 
long periods of time. 

On the other hand, the rapid growth of a city 
necessarily involves the introduction of new and 
strange elements into the city structure. If the 
population growth is attracted by new industries, 
factories may invade residential areas and render 
them undesirable for high-grade occupancy. Or, 
new industries may draw to the city unskilled la- 
borers of foreign or nonwhite stock with low living 
standards. The entry of these newcomers into 
existing residential areas hastens changes in the 
character of neighborhoods. The increase of popu' 
lation in a city forces an expansion in stores, ware 
houses, and office buildings. This expansion fre' 
quently causes a transition in types of land use in 
areas bordering central business districts. 

Of even greater importance is the effect of building 
new homes to take care of the added population. 
New residential structures on the periphery of the 
city compete with the old dwelling units. The 
influx of newcomers causes a shifting and filtering 
process that profoundly affects every neighborhood 
m the city. All of the new arrivals do not occupy 



81 



new homes. Many of the old residents move to new 
and more attractive homes farther removed from 
business and industrial sites, while many of the new 
arrivals enter old neighborhoods and occupy homes 
abandoned by the previous occupants. Thus, 
stresses and strains are set up that accelerate neigh- 
borhood change whenever a large number of new 
arrivals enter a city and cause a building boom. The 
added population causes a pressure for space, a rise 
in rents, and an increase in building. But the effect 
of its entry is not confined to a mere quantitative 
change in building supply; it also causes qualitative 
neighborhood changes. 

The relationship between rate of population 
growth and rate of neighborhood change that might 
be expected to exist on the basis of deductive reason- 
ing is actually found to hold true when case his- 
tories of individual cities are examined. A city of 
slow population growth may be contrasted with a 
city of rapid growth, and the differences in the 
rate of movement of the high-grade residential 
neighborhoods may be measured. A striking com- 
parison may be made between the rate of population 
growth and the rate of movement of fashionable 
neighborhoods in two cities that were approxi- 
mately the same size in 1930, Charleston, S. C, 
and Charleston, W. Va. 

(In Charleston, S. C, the population has only 
doubled since 1830 and has increased but 11.6 per- 
cent from 1900 to 1930. The fashionable residen- 
tial area still remains near the location established 
over 100 years ago.- Room for expanding the high- 
grade home area was obtained by filling in land on 
the Ashley River, a few blocks from the sites of the 
first mansions. In contrast with the fixity of posi- 
tion of the residential area in this static city is the 
movement of the fashionable areas of Charleston, 
W. Va., a city whose population increased from 
11,099 in 1900 to 60,408 in 1930, a gain of nearly 
sixfold. In the West Virginia city, the fashionable 
residential neighborhood — located in the eighties on 
Clendennin Street two blocks from the juncture of 
the Elk and Kanawha Rivers — did not remain at 
the point of original settlement. By 1900 it had 
moved to Kanawha Street, and the vanguard had 
reached the present State Capitol grounds — over a 
mile from the area first occupied by fashionable 
homes. From 1900 to 1915, the movement of high- 
grade neighborhoods continued eastward along 



Kanawha Street, and two new fashionable residen- 
tial areas were developed. One was along Edge- 
wood Drive in West Charlestcn, and the other in 
Louden Heights across the river from the main 
business section. All these residential areas con- 
tinued to expand in the period 1915 to 1935 so that 
the present fashionable home areas occupy dis- 
tricts a mile or more from the point of origin. 

Also, during the past century, the high-grade 
home neighborhoods of Chicago were moving 
steadily outward from their original locations near 
the present "Loop. 11 As the population of Chicago 
grew from 3,820 in 1836 to 93,000 in 1857, the 
vanguard of high-grade residential settlement had 
moved to Chicago Avenue on the north, Halsted 
Street on the west, and Harrison Street on the south, 
or nearly a mile from the point of origin. From 
1857 to 1873, while the population of Chicago 
quadrupled, the farthest outpost of fashionable 
growth had moved 2 miles farther north and south 
and nearly a mile west. In the period from 1874 
to 1899, when the number of people in Chicago 
tripled, there was a further extension of nearly 5 
miles in the three bands of fashionable homes. In 
the next 35 years there was a continued outward 
movement of high-grade neighborhoods ana an 
expansion of high-grade suburban neighborhoods, 
north, south, and west. Figure 29 shows the areas 
of new growth in Chicago during each of the periods 
cited. The suburban residential towns of Chicago, 
developed since the turn of the century, are from 
10 to 30 miles distant from the "Loop. 11 During 
the century of outward movement of high-grade 
residential neighborhoods, there was deterioration 
in the quality of areas in the rear of the line of 
march except for replacing of old structures with 
high-grade apartments on the "Gold Coast. 11 

The same outward movement of high-grade 
residential neighborhoods took place in New York, 
Detroit, Los Angeles, Seattle, Washington, D. C, 
and other rapidly growing American cities. In 
Detroit, the population of which increased 450 
percent from 1900 to 1930, the high-grade residen- 
tial neighborhoods located on Jefferson Avenue 
(near the business center) and in Indian Village in 
1900, had moved to Grosse Point, Palmer Park, and 
Rosedale — 7 to 10 miles from the central business 
district. Other outposts of high-grade develop- 
ment, in Birmingham near Detroit, were 15 miles 



82 



FIGURE 29 

GROWTH OF HIGH GRADE RESIDENTIAL AREAS 

CHICAGO 1857-1930 




SOURCE HOYT, HOMER, ONE HUNDRED YEARS OF LAND VALUES IN CHICAGO, 
(CHICAGO, UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS, 1933) P. 319 



FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION 
DIVISION OF ECONOMICS & STATISTICS 



83 



and more from the downtown section. Thus, while 
many local forces, such as deed restrictions, char- 
acter of the residents of an area, type of buildings, 
etc., affect the rate of neighborhood change, the 
rapidity of population growth is one of the most 
important determinants of the differences in the 
speed with which high 'grade neighborhoods move 
to new locations. 

Since the rate of change in the internal structure 
of a city varies to a considerable extent with the 
rate of increase in population, it becomes important 
to set forth briefly the main causes in the differences 
of population growth of cities at different times, 
and of the effect of these variable rates of growth 
upon variations in the rate of new construction. 

Variations in the rate of population growth.— The 
rate of increase of population for the United States 
as a whole is governed by the net increase of births 
over deaths and the net difference between immi- 
gration and emigration. In considering the rate of 
increase of population of different American cities, 
however, we are also confronted with the phenome- 
non of internal migration responding to economic 
opportunities. This latter phenomenon, when super- 
imposed upon normal countrywide population forces, 
makes for extraordinary variation between different 
cities. For example, in the three decades from 
1900 to 1930, the percentage of population increase 
for cities of 25,000 population and over varied from 
11.6 percent in the case of Charleston, S. C, to 
10,062.4 percent for Tulsa, Okla. 

Within single States there were similar wide 
ranges in the rate of population change. In 30 
years' time, population changes in Florida cities 
ranged from a decline of 25 percent for Key West, 
to a gain of 6,482 percent for Miami. In Michigan, 
in the single decade from 1920 to 1930, population 
changes ranged from a decline of 9.1 percent for 
Iron wood City to an increase of 1,939 percent in 
Dearborn." Examination of table XXIV discloses 
that similar variations are found in State after State, 
wide variations in population increases 
both large and small cities may be seen from 
\0. That chart shows the range in percentage 

lange during the decade from 1920 to 1930 in 35 
citieK of over 250,000 population and 35 cities of 
less than 250,000 population in 1930. From table 
XXIV and figure 30, it is evident that population 
growth in American cities follows no uniform 




curve based on birth and death rates. It is rather, 
subject to extraordinary fluctuations due to the 
mobility of the American population and its migra- 
tions in search of economic opportunity. J 

In addition to the variations in the rate of popula- 
tion growth by decades between different cities, 
there are fluctuations in the rate of population gain 
for the same city for different decades. The sharp 
rate of population gain in the early stages, when a 
village is growing into a town or city, is frequently 
followed by a slackening rate of increase. Some- 
times an old city with a slow rate of growth for a 
long period has a new burst of population increase, 
or cities have alternating decades of rapid growth 
and stagnation. These extraordinary differences in 
the rate of population growth in different cities 
are caused by changes in opportunities for employ- 
ment that are afforded by industry and trade in a 
given city or by its growth in attractiveness as a 
tourist resort. 

The population growth of 20 cities of different 
sizes, widely scattered geographically, is shown in 
figure 3 1 . To facilitate the comparison of percentage 
changes, the curves of population growth have all 
been plotted on a logarithmic scale. The population 
of Key West, Fla., declined 25 percent from 1900 
to 1930 as a result of the removal of the cigar 
industry. The population growth of Miami, Fla., 
which increased nearly one-hundred-fold from 1900 
to 1925, is based on its attractiveness as a tourist 
resort. The increase in the population of Washing- 
ton, D. C, is a reflection of growth in the activities 
of the Federal Government. The long time, rela- 
tively steady growth of New York City is a reflec- 
tion of its growth as a world financial and business 
center and its strategic location for world trade and 
commerce. Cities like Portland, Oreg., and Los 
Angeles, Calif., which began their most rapid 
growth after the western frontier had been pushed 
beyond the Rockies, have grown extremely rapidly 
in the past half century. 

Some cities are founded on single industries. The 
increase of 450 percent in the population of Detroit 
from 1900 to 1930 was caused by the rise of the 
automobile industry. Gary, Ind., was founded on 
steel; Akron, Ohio, on rubber; Schenectady, N. Y., 
on the General Electric plant. The population of 
each of these cities grew as these industries expanded. 
Usually, however, the support of the population of 



84 



Table XXIV. — Maximum and Minimum Rates of Population Change for Cities in Each State 1 With Population 

of 10,000 and over in 1930 by Decades, 1900 to 1930 



States 



Alabama 

Arizona 

Arkansas 

California 

Colorado 

Connecticut .... 

Florida 

Georgia 

Illinois 

Indiana 

Iowa 

Kansas 

Kentucky 

Louisiana 

Maine 

Maryland 

Massachusetts . . . 

Michigan 

Minnesota 

Mississippi 

Missouri 

Montana 

Nebraska 

New Hampshire 
New Jersey. . . . 

New Mexico . . . 

New York 

North Carolina 
North Dakota 
Ohio 

Oklahoma 

Oregon 

Pennsylvania . . . . 
Rhode Island 
South Carolina . . 

South Dakota . . . 

Tennessee 

Texas 

Utah 

Vermont 

Virginia 

Washington. . . . 
West Virginia . . . 

Wisconsin 

Wyoming 



1900-1910 



Minimum Maximum 



-5.7 
75.2 
15. 1 
n.7 
37.9 

12.0 

16.5 

4. 1 

-9.9 

-14.8 

~4.3 

-9.7 

7.1 

18.1 

-10.3 

1.0 

-9.0 

-18.0 

-5.7 
-3.4 

-24.8 

-6.6 

9.5 

.3 
2. 1 

-9.5 

3.3 

3.9 

49.5 

-3.2 

-.3 

14.5 

-7.0 

21.0 

5.4 

37-3 

8.7 

-2. 1 

44.3 
9.8 

2.9 
-1.5 

7.1 
-11.3 
-19.6 



245.4 
100.8 
1, 174. 5 
232.2 
170.6 

59.5 

225. 5 

144.7 

141. l 

. 459.9 

112.2 

156.1 

75.5 

98.5 

20.9 

56.4 

75.3 

864.9 

256. Ox 

502. 5 \ 

273.6 

211.4 

55.2 

32.6 

250.6 

201.2 
220.8 
173.1 
384.6 
232.9 

1, 722. 6 

517.0 

436. 

58.2 

75.6 

187.2 

83.0 

751.4 

73.3 
27. 1 

90.5 
798.0 
382.8 
170.2 
198.9 



1910-20 



Minimum Maximum 



5.3 

33.8 

-19.0 

-8.4 

3.5 

-6.4 
-6.0 
9.5 
-1.7 
-3.0 

-5.6 

-23. 1 

-6.3 

14.2 

4.7 

6.3 

-5.9 

-15.2 

3.0 
- 13. 2 

-6.8 

-3.8 

3.3 

-1.6 

-3. 1 

14.0 
-8.3 

6.1 
12.3 

5.0 

-9.7 
-34.9 

-5.4 
5.9 
9.5 

30. 1 

7-2 

-2.6 

15.4 
-6.8 

.2 

-19.9 

12.4 

-6.8 

22.2 



71.9 
160.9 

67.5 
392.9 

34.0 

299.0 
440.5 
205.0 
142.3 
229.6 

78.7 
251.4 
69.5 
56.6 
56.8 

70.0 
68.6 
1, 028. 6 
70.8 
85.1 

181.0 
72.9 

118.4 
36.7 

187.9 

42.7 
209.8 
123.5 

69.3 
415.6 

317-4 
74.1 

478.9 
39.3 
55.4 

78.8 

114.1 

388.8 

28.2 

11.3 

76.2 
198.0 
202.9 
274.8 
333.8 



1920-30 



Minimum Maximum 



15.5 
60.2 

7.7 

-14. 1 

2.0 

-4.9 
-31.6 
-14.2 
-11.0 
-14.4 

-4.5 

-6.2 

-4. 1 

18.5 

-38.2 

9.7 

-11. 1 

-9. 1 

-14.7 
2.3 

-1.6 

-5.0 

6.6 

-2.0 

-13.1 

54.4 

-14.8 

-1.8 

22. 1 
-11.5 

9.5 

-26.2 

-15.2 

-8.7 

-8.4 

8.7 

17.6 

-18.8 

18.8 



■16.0 

3. 1 

3.6 

-9.0 

25.5 



72.2 

65.6 

322.5 

2, 485., 9 

31.2 

80.0 

274.1 

64.8 

716.7 
81.3 

74.4 
98.8 
99.0 
105.3 
49.6 

45.6 

84.3 

1, 938. 8 

50.3 

111.6 

280.0 
19.5 

38.2 
24.3 

293.4 

75.3 
421.6 
169.7 

55. 7 
279.2 

1,241.8 

235. 2 

104. 3 

45.9 

37.5 

80. 1 
109.3 
960.8 

43.3 
15.8 

710.8 
90.4 
52.5 

408.6 
45.2 



1 Delaware and Nevada each contained only 1 and Idaho only 2 cities with populations of 10,000 or more in 1930. 

Source: U. S. Department of Commerce, Fifteenth Census of tlie United States, Population, Vol. 1 (Washington, 1931), table 2 for each State. 



85 



FIGURE 30 



PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE IN THE POPULATION 
OF 70 AMERICAN CITIES 

1920 TO 1930 



CITIES WITH POPULATION 
OVER 250,000 



OF 



CITIES WITH POPULATION OF 
LESS THAN 250.000 



LOS ANGELES, CALIF. 
HOUSTON, TEXAS 
JERSEY CITY, N. J. 
ROCHESTER, N Y 
DALLAS, TEXAS 
DETROIT, MICH 
MEMPHIS, TENN 
BIRMINGHAM, ALA 
ATLANTA, GA. 
OAKLAND, CALIF. 
LOUISVILLE, KY. 
MILWAUKEE, WIS. 
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 
CHICAGO, ILL 
NEW YORK, N.Y. 
KANSAS CITY, MO. 
COLUMBUS, OHIO 
MINNEAPOLIS, M'NN. 
NEW ORLEANS, LA. 
PORTLAND, ORE. 
INDIANAPOLIS, IND. 
SEATTLE, WASH. 
ST. PAUL, MINN. 
PITTSBURGH, PA. 
BUFFALO, N.Y. 
CLEVELAND, OHIO 
CINCINNATI, OHIO 
DENVER, COLO. 
WASHINGTON, D. C. 
BALTIMORE, MD. 
PHILADELPHIA, PA. 
NEWARK, N.J. 
PROVIDENCE, R. I. 
ST. LOUIS, MO. 
BOSTON, MASS. 



MIAMI, FLA. 
GREENSBORO, N.C 
JACKSON, MISS. 
OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLA. 
TULSA, OKLA 
SYRACUSE, N.Y. 
DAYTON, OHIO 
PHOENIX, ARIZ. 
BISMARCK, N. D. 
SANTA FE, N.M. 
RENO, NEV. 
FORT WORTH, TEXAS 
PARKERSBURG, W. VA. 
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 
JACKSONVILLE, FLA. 
SIOUX FALLS, S. D 
TOPEKA, KANSAS 
CHEYENNE, WYO. 
LITTLE ROCK, ARK. 
SPRINGFIELD, ILL 
KANSAS CITY, KANS. 
HARTFORD, CONN. 
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 
CONCORD, N.H. 
DES MOINES, IOWA 
ALBANY, N.Y, 
OMAHA, NEB. 
BURLINGTON, VT. 
RICHMOND, VA. 
WILMINGTON, DEL. 
PORTLAND, ME. 
BOISE, IDAHO 
HELENA, MONT 
CHARLESTON 
KEY WEST, FLA 



10 
INT 
i, S.C 




50 



100 150 200 

PERCENT 



300 



SOURCE: US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, FIFTEENTH CENSUS OF THE U.S. 
1930, POPULATION, VOL. I (WASHINGTON, DC, 1931) TABLE 11,12 a 13 



FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION 
DIVISION OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS 



86 



FIGURE 31 



COMPARISON OF LONG -TIME POPULATION GROWTH 
OF 20 SELECTED AMERICAN CITIES 



POPULATION 

IN 

THOUSANDS 

10,000 



1,000 




POPULATION IN THOUSANDS 
10,000 1,000 



1,000 100 



-X+-/— 100 




POPULATION IN THOUSANDS 
1,000 10,000 



100 1,000 



1,000 100 



1,000 



1800 1850 1900 30 



1800 1850 1900 30 































































































































- 
















... . 


















































































& 


7 
















."*' 














Elf 




ft/I 
























fc'l 










/ 

<o/| 

vj/l 
III 

/h 






















u 
J 




















j 
















i" 












/ 






































- 




/ 


- 


l 


/ 




t 


T y 




£ 




. 






7"' 


A 




■*- 






















































































»u& _L 


i^ 












I 

Vr 


1 






































°\ 





















































POPULATION 

IN 

THOUSANDS 

10,000 



— 1,000 



1850 1900 30 



SOURCE US. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, FIFTEENTH CENSUS OF THE U.S., 
POPULATION, VOL. I (WASHINGTON, D. C. , 1931 ) TABLE 2 FOR 
EACH STATE CONTAINING CITIES CHARTED. 



FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION 
DIVISION OF ECONOMICS a STATISTICS 



87 



cities is not dependent on a single industry. In 
cities containing hundreds or thousands of indus- 
tries, the expansion of the opportunities for employ- 
ment in industry as a whole depends upon the 
balancing of growth or decline in employment 
opportunities in all the individual plants. 

Some cities are almost entirely commercial and 
rely upon trade with their tributary area for their 
support. This category of wholesale and retail 
trade with the hinterland enters to a greater or less 
degree into the support of most cities. In this 
case, the growth in the size or population of the 
trading area requires a growth in the number of 
people in the principal city that performs the 
services of wholesale trade, banking, insurance, and 
transportation for that area. Educational institu- 
tions, political capitals, and mineral or timber re- 
sources all contribute to the population growth of 
towns or cities. 

It is not intended to discuss in this monograph all 
of the complex interacting causes that make one 
city a favorable place for industry, or a crossroads 
of commerce, or a popular tourist resort, or all of 
these in varying proportions. The population 
growth of a city is dependent upon the advantages 
which make the given urban site a favorable spot 
for industry and trade or for recreation. The varia- 
tions in the rate of population growth in American 
cities are thus due to variations in the net growth 
of demand for labor from all sources in the given 
city; and in some cases, to changes in the attractive- 
ness of a city as tourist resort or as a place in which 
to enjoy other benefits. 

An analysis of the underlying causes of the popula- 
tion growth of a city thus furnishes a basis for 
estimating the probable rate of neighborhood move- 
ment or the time that will be required for a high 
grade residential area to change its character. 1 In 
order to estimate the future rate of movement of a 
neighborhood, an analysis of the forces that will 
tend to attract industries or trade to the given 
city is required. 

There are, however, forces that tend to qualify 
the general rule as to the effect of population growth 
on the rate of neighborhood change. Residential 
areas that are protected by deed restrictions, by 

1 See appendix, pp. 131-132, for a technique developed from studies made by 
the Federal Housing Administration for use in rating urban are asas an aid in 
selecting mortgage risks. The technique is a practical application of an analysis 
of those forces affecting urban growth discussed in this secion. 



natural geographic barriers, and by the stable 
character of the residents will maintain themselves 
longer in rapidly growing cities than other types of 
neighborhoods. Neighborhoods in which homes 
are well constructed of enduring materials and with 
a stable architecture will maintain themselves for 
greater periods of time than areas of flimsily con- 
structed homes. However, even in slowly growing 
cities, deterioration in the quality of neighborhoods 
will result from the obsolescence and decay of the 
existing structures, and from the change in the 
character of the residents as the first inhabitants 
grow old and are replaced by a younger generation 
or by newcomers. 

In a slow-growing or declining city, all the neigh- 
borhoods may decline at a similar rate. In this case, 
there is less differential change as between the 
various neighborhoods in the city since there is a 
general decrease in the quality of all the home areas 
in the community. In cities growing rapidly in 
population, on the other hand, there are more likely 
to be sudden transitions in the quality of some types 
of neighborhoods. There will be cases of some 
neighborhoods improving in quality, others remain- 
ing static, and still others declining. The rate of 
neighborhood change may vary even between cities 
growing in population at the same rate. The com- 
ponent elements of the added population are of 
extreme importance. There was a more rapid 
transition in residential neighborhoods in northern 
and midwestern industrial cities that attracted 
unskilled immigrants from other countries or Negroes 
from the South than in southern or western cities 
where the added population was largely of the same 
race and nationality as the first residents. 

A new industry in a city does not necessarily 
cause a dislocation of existing neighborhood pat- 
terns, however. The workers attracted by the new 
plant may form a community, as in Pullman and 
Cicero near Chicago, that is separate and distinct 
from the other neighborhoods. High grade resi- 
dential suburbs beyond the limits of a rapidly grow- 
ing city may also maintain their character indefi- 
nitely as in the case o£Oak Park and Evanston near 
Chicago. In this case, the~~original settlements 
were located at such a distance from the business 
center and industrial districts of Chicago that they 
could protect themselves from the movement of 
groups radiating out from the city center. 



88 



Thus, we have different rates of growth in differ' 
ent cities and in the same city at different times. 
The dislocation of neighborhood patterns will pro- 
ceed at a pace regulated by the type and rapidity of 
expansion, the location of the neighborhood relative 
to business and industrial areas of growth, and local 
peculiarities tending to restrict rapid changes. 
Variations in urban growth generally are reflections 
of the immigration and internal migration of people 
in response to economic opportunities. Fluctua- 
tions in net immigration and the net flow of people 
from farms to cities are factors of urban growth 
superimposed upon normal growth or decline that 
is due to an excess or a deficit of births over deaths. 
Population shifts due to those causes do not occur 
spasmodically. They follow the pattern of the 
business cycle and are the result of the response of 
mobile populations to the expansion of urban em- 
ployment opportunities in the period of the upswing 
of the cycle and to the cessation of immigration or 
the flow of people from city to country districts in 
the period of business recession. 

The statistics on the number of immigrants ad- 
mitted annually from 1820 to the present, shown m 
figure 32, clearly indicate the cyclical pattern of the 
immigration tide. The peaks of immigration were 
reached in periods of prosperity and peace in the 
United States, such as in the periods 1850 to 1854; 
1865 to 1873; 1880 to 1882; 1885 to 1892; 1902 to 
1907; 1910 to 1914; and 1921 to 1924. The inter- 
vening low points of 1858 to 1862; 1876 to 1879; 
1894 to 1898; 1908 to 1909; came m years immedi- 
ately following the trough of business depression. 
The ebb tide from 1915 to 1919 was the result of 
the World War. Restrictions in our immigration 
laws tended to lower the inflow in the prosperity 
period of the latter part of the 1920 , s, and the 
depression of the early 1930 1 s resulted in a net 
departure of 113,000 aliens in 1932. 

There are no comparable annual statistics on 
internal migration prior to 1920; but in the period 
1920 to 1937, shown in table XXV, the migration 
from farms to cities was greatest in the periods of 
rising urban employment, and it ceased altogether 
and reversed itself in the depression year of 1932. 

It is probable that migration from farms to cities 
in the past has followed the same cyclical pattern as 
immigration. People flock to cities in response to 
economic opportunities, and it is reasonable to infer 



that they come in greatest numbers in years of ex- 
panding urban employment. 

Table XXV. — 7v[et Movement of Persons in the United 
States From Farms to Cities, 1920-37 



Year 


Thousands of 
persons 


Year 


Thousands of 
persons 


1920 . . . : 

1921 

1922 

1923 

1924 

1925 

1926 . 

1927 

1928 


336 
564 

1, 137 
807 

487 

702 
907 
457 
422 


1929 

1930 

1931 

1932 

1933 

1934 

1935 

1936 

1937 


477 

212 

20 

-266 

281 

351 
386 
447 
288 



Source: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Statistics, 1938 
(Washington, D. C, 1938), p. 435. 

This cyclical nature of population growth may also 
be shown by the annual rates of population increase 
of individual cities. The estimated annual percent- 
age increases of population in Chicago from 1835 to 
1934, and m Los Angeles from 1900 to 1937, are 
shown in figure 33. In Chicago, annual population 
estimates indicate that the highest annual rates of 
population growth for Chicago took place in such 
periods of expanding business in Chicago as 1845 to 
1855, 1862 to 1872, 1879 to 1892, and 1920 to 1927- 
On the other hand, in periods of business recession, 
there was a slackening in the rate of growth or an 
absolute decline. In the depression years of 1837 to 
1838, 1857 to 1858, and 1930 to 1933, there were 
actual declines in the population of this rapidly 
growing large city. The rate of population growth 
of Chicago was small during the depression periods, 
1874 to 1877 and 1893 to 1897- In Los Angeles, 
the most rapid population growth in the period 1900 
to 1937 occurred from 1900 to 1906, 1909 to 1913, 
and 1919 to 1923. There was a marked slackening 
in the rate of increase in the recession period 1907-8, 
during the World War, and from 1928-37- 

There are not only extraordinary variations in the 
rate of growth of different American cities and the x 
same city at different times; but, also, in the same 
city in the same period, there are differences in the 
rate of population growth of different sections. Even 
though the city as a whole may be increasing rapidly 
in population, there are usually areas surrounding the 
business center in which the population is declining. 



89 



FIGURE 32 






NET 



IMMIGRANTS ADMITTED TO 
THE UNITED STATES, 1820 - 1938 
COMPARED WITH 
ALIEN ARRIVALS OR DEPARTURES, 1908 - 1938 



NUMBER 

IN 

THOUSANDS 



1,500 



ALIENS ADMITTED 



NET ALIEN ARRIVALS 



NET ALIEN DEPARTURES 



500 



-150 



- -rliTTTfTm I Ml I 1 M 1 



_u_ 




1820 



1830 



1840 



1850 



I860 



1870 



1880 



1890 



1900 



1910 



1920 



1930 



1940 



SOURCE: THOMPSON, W S. AND WHELPTON, P. K. , POPULATION TRENDS IN THE 
UNITED STATES (NEW YORK , McGRAW - H I LL BOOK CO. , INC. , 1933) 
P. 293 U.S. DEPARTMEMT OF LABOR, REPORTS OF IMMIGRATION 
AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE (WASHINGTON, D. C. ) 



FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION 
DIVISION OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS 



90 



FIGURE 33 



PERCENTAGE INCREASE IN POPULATION 

BY YEARS 
IN CHICAGO AND LOS ANGELES 



PERCENT 



CHICAGO 
1835-1934 




1940 



1840 



I860 



1930 



SOURCE: hoyt, homer, one hundred years of land values in Chicago 
(Chicago, university of Chicago Press, 1933), p 483 



PERCENT 



LOS ANGELES 
1900-1937 




_i 1 1 i_ 



1900 



1920 



1940 



SOURCE: CONSULTING ENGINEER, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, 1900 - 1929 
CALIFORNIA TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION, 1930 - 1937 



FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION 
DIVISION OF ECONOMICS 8 STATISTICS 



L63253— 39- 



91 



The tendency for the central parts of great cities 
to decline in population while the number of persons 
on the periphery increases is a world wide urban 
phenomenon. In central London, there was a 
decrease of 13.6 percent in the population between 
1891 and 1921, while the population in the fringe of 
the city outside the county of London increased 
110.1 percent. From 1921 ^to 1931 there was a 
decline of 0.4 percent in the population of the county 
of London, while the rest of greater London outside 
the county increased 20.9 percent. Similarly, in 
Paris and Berlin the greatest population increases 
in recent decades were on the periphery of the city. 

In Chicago, the population of the area within 2 
miles of the business center reached its peak in 1890 
and subsequently declined. The population of the 
next mile zone reached its high point in 1900, and 
the number of persons living from 3 to 4 miles from 
the center reached a maximum in 1910. 2 In the 
same city, the population of an irregular area 3 ex- 
tending 4 to 5 miles from the business center declined 
from 1,060,716 to 848,803, a drop of 20 percent 
between 1920 and 1934, while the population of 
the rest of the city outside this area increased from 
1,641,000 to 2,411,200, a gain of 47 percent. In 
the period from 1920 to 1930, the population of the 
Chicago suburban area increased 72 percent. 4 The 
highest rate of population decrease in Chicago was 
in the area immediately adjacent to the business 
center, and the rate of loss declines until the bound' 
aries of the area of declining population are reached. 
Beyond the edge of the territory of decreasing popu- 
lation is a fringe in which the rate of population 
growth was less than 10 percent from 1920 to 1930. 
Finally, on the periphery near the city limits, north 
and west, were areas with a population gain of 200 
percent and over in the same decade. 

In St. Louis, Mo., the population in the triangular 
area near the business center, bounded by the Mis- 
sissippi River, Jefferson Avenue, and Angelica 
Street, reached its peak in 1900 and declined 33 per- 
cent in the next three decades. The population in 
the next zone between Jefferson and Grand Avenues 

2 Report of the Chicago Traction and Subway Commission (Chicago 1916), 

p. 73. 

3 Calculations based upon Census Data of the City of Chicago, 1934, edited, 
by Newcomb, C. S., and Lang, R. O. (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 
1934), pp. 692-695. 

4 U. S. Department of Commerce, Fifteenth Census of the United States, 
Population, Vol. I (Washington, 1931), pp. 289-290, Cook County, excluding 
Chicago city. 



attained its maximum in 1920 and declined slightly 
in the ensuing decade.'' In the third zone, between 
Grand Avenue and Kingshighway, the population 
growth continued to 1930, but at a slackening rate 
of increase after 1920. In the fourth and last zone, 
between Kingshighway and the city limits, the 
rate of population growth was most rapid— increas- 
ing more than threefold from 1900 to 1920 and 
another 40 percent from 1920 to 1930. 

In New York City, the population of Manhattan 
Island, the area of early rapid population growth, 
reached its apex in 1910. Its population decreased 
29 percent in the next 25 years. In the same quarter 
of a century, the population of the Bronx increased 
257 percent, and that of Queens increased 389 
percent. 6 

Cycle of new construction. — The physical growth 
of cities is measured chiefly by the addition of new 
buildings and not by the growth of population. 
Despite a marked growth or contraction in the nunv 
ber of residents, the external appearance of the city 
may not be greatly altered. In one case the existing 
structures are overcrowded with much doubling 
up; in the other case there are many vacancies. The 
ebb and flow of the population tide, however, does 
tend to operate upon the profit motive in a manner 
that leads to the production of buildings in a cycle 
that follows the population cycle. 

Since the fluctuations in the volume of new con- 
struction of a city affect the rate of internal neigh- 
borhood change, the sequence of events in the 
building cycle is of great value in understanding 
neighborhood movements. The primary or initial 
impulse that starts an upswing in construction is 
the beginning of recovery of industry and trade 
from the Low point of a depression. The upswing 
is not necessarily universal. In a few industries, 
located in certain cities, the revival begins. At 
these places there is a demand for more labor. As 
increasing numbers of the qualified unemployed in 
the city secure jobs, there is an inflow of workers 
from the country districts and from other cities and 
towns to take advantage of the opportunities for 
employment. As the industrial expansion con- 
tinues, there may be a rapid increase in the number 

5 City Plan Commission, St. Louis, Mo., Urban Land Policy, October 1936, 
p. 8. 

6 Data for 1910 from Abstract of the Fifteenth Census of the U. S., U. S. 
Department of Commerce (Washington 1933), p. 22; 1935 data from Official 
Directory, 1937, The City of New York, p. 7- 



92 



of workers coming to the community. The sudden 
influx of this body of laborers and their families puts 
a pressure on housing facilities in the particular 
cities where industry or trade is expanding and 
causes any existing vacancies to vanish. Rents for 
dwelling units in these cities begin a rise which is 
slow at first and then rapid as available residential 
quarters become very scarce. The increase in rents 
causes a rise in the value of existing buildings. If 
the cost of new building does not rise faster than 
rents, it becomes profitable to build. As a result a 
construction boom is initiated, based on the hopes 
of the continuation of industrial expansion and the 
consequent continued attraction of individuals seek' 
ing economic opportunity. The absorption of land 
for new construction generates a land and subdivi- 
sion boom. 

About the time all of these speculative activities 
are at full tide, industrial employment has either 
reached peak levels or is increasing at a slower rate. 
The supply of houses overtakes and passes the 
increase in the number of home dwellers, with the 
result that vacancies begin to increase, and the rapid 
advance in rents comes to an end. There is a wait' 
ing period in which real-estate speculation subsides, 
and the market for real property becomes stagnant 
without any drastic declines. Finally, however, an 
industrial crisis terminates the era of full employ- 
ment at high wages. Many laborers are forced to 
return to the country districts from which they came; 
others, because of reduced wages, are forced to 
"double up. 11 As a result, vacancies increase rapidly 
and rents decline drastically. 

As operating expenses do not fall as rapidly as 
rents, net income from rented properties falls even 
faster than gross rents. Foreclosures mount rapidly, 
and prices of existing buildings fall under the pres- 
sure of forced sales. While rents have fallen dras- 
tically, nominal union wage rates are maintained at 
peak levels. Building material costs have been low- 
ered but slightly. Because of lowered returns with 
the maintenance of high costs of building produc' 
tion, it is not profitable to build, and new construe' 
tion practically ceases. Meanwhile, the number of 
new urban families is increasing very slightly, if at 
all, because not only are many families leaving the 
city but many marriages are being deferred for 
economic reasons. 



This downward spiral is reversed when there 
begins to be an improvement in industrial employ- 
ment, and the whole process already described starts 
over again. Thus, the extraordinary variations in 
the annual rate of new construction in American 
cities often result from a sequence of events that is 
set in motion by shifts of population responding to 
the business cycle/ In Chicago, for example, be- 
tween 1852 and 1932 five-sixths of all the buildings 
were erected in the 40 most active building years and 
only one-sixth of the structures were erected in the 
other 40 years. While 25 square miles of newly 
built-up areas were added to its territory in the 8 
years from 1921 to 1929, the growth in the next 8 
years was neglible. The population of Chicago in- 
creased most during years of great building activity. 
The growth from 2,600,000 in 1919 to 3,400,000 in 
1927 led to a building boom in which the permit 
value of new buildings increased tenfold from 
$34,792,000 in 1918 to $366,586,400 in 1926. When 
population declined from 1927 to 1932, the value of 
new construction dropped 99 percent — to $3,824,' 
500 in 1932. Similar fluctuations, although not al- 
ways so violent, may be found in other cities. 

One writer 8 has compared annual population 
growth and new construction activity in 17 Amer- 
ican cities for the period 1875 to 1933 and found that 
there was a tendency for population growth to 
anticipate major changes in building activity by a 
year or two. 

Examination of a single recent cycle reveals a 
striking corroboration of the effect of a rapid spurt 
in the population of American cities upon urban 
residential building in the United States. The 
basic population factors contributing to city growth, 
the value of new residential construction, and an 
index of rents are shown together in figure 34 for 
the years from 1920 to 1936. Economic oppor- 
tunities after the World War caused a rush to cities. 
There was first the return of 5,000,000 soldiers and 
sailors to their homes in 1919. Second, the excess 
in the number of aliens arriving from abroad over 
the number departing increased from 19,000 in 
1918 to 552,000 in 1921; and after a decline to 

7 See Hoyt, Homer, op. at., p. 411, fig. 99, The Chicago Land Value and 
Budding Cycles Compared with General Business Activity in the United 
States, 1830-1933. 

8 Newman, W. H., "The Building Industry and Business Cycles," The 
Journal of Business of the University of Chicago, July 1935, pt. 2, pp. 32-39. 



93 



FIGURE 34 



FACTORS AFFECTING URBAN POPULATION GROWTH 

COMPARED WITH VALUE OF 

NEW URBAN RESIDENTIAL BUILDING 

AND URBAN RESIDENTIAL RENTS 



THOUSANDS OF 
PERSONS 



MILLIONS OF 
DOLLARS 

















^ 


wiyf of 


NEW 


URBAN 






























\jf RESIDENTIAL BUILDING 






















/ - : 


"""•: l\l 




































w 


. ^m RENTS 


of workingmen's homes 


5. 










Al / 




EXCESS OF BIRTHS 4 \ \ 




























* OVER DEATHS \ 


\ 






















-/*4/- 


(-■ 




_j\ 


\ 






















'/If 


\ 


/\ 


\l 


A 








'. 




























IV 


\ 






\ 
























A 


/* s 


ET MIGRATION FROM \ 
FARMS TO CITIES 




.A, 


\ ' 
















































' v 1920 - 1936 






























1 
1 




1 * 




































1 

1 
1 




/". 












\ 






















1 




/ 




































t 




1 


1 




































1 
1 


I 
1 










\ 




















/A 




/ 


\ r 




\ 
i 






























7\ 




/ 

/ 


"\ 


1 

\ 




«... 


*"' 


\ 
\ 
1 


V 






• ^ 


* 


.-7 


\ 
\ 










1 






^" 


\ 






f / 

' ' / 


















^ NET ALIEN 


"\\ 






/ ['•••/.•••••• 














ARRIVALS OR DEPARTURES 


\x 




































■v 




f 


1 






— 


. — 




























/ — 
































> 


I 1 


~s 








































\ 1 
V 



















PERCENT 
-- 110 



4000 100 



3000 



1000 70 



1920 



1925 



1930 



1935 



1940 



I WICKENS, D. L. , AND FOSTER , R R , NON - FARM RESIDENTIAL 
CONSTRUCTION, 1920 - 1936. NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC 
RESEARCH, N. Y , BULLETIN 65, SEPTEMBER 15, 1937, P 2 

2. US. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS, 1938 
(WASHINGTON, D.C, 1938) P. 435 

3 THOMPSON, W. S., AND WHELPTON, P. K , POPULATION TRENDS IN THE 
UNITED STATES (NEW YORK, McGRAW - HILL BOOK CO , INC , 1933) 

P 296 AND DEPARTMENT OF LABOR , REPORTS OF IMMIGRATION AND 
NATURALIZATION SERVICE (WASHINGTON, DC) 

4 THOMPSON, W.S., AND WHELPTON, P. K., OP. CIT. PP 234, 266 
5. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, CHANGES IN COST OF LIVING, 

JULY 15, 1938 (WASHINGTON, D. C. ) P. 6 



94 



FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION 
DIVISION OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS 



87,000 in 1922, it rose to a new peak of 663,000 in 
1924. Most of these aliens went to cities. Third, 
the net number of persons going from farms to 
cities rose from 336,000 in 1920 to 1,137,000 in 
1922. Finally, even the natural increase due to an 
excess of births over deaths rose from the low point 
of 900,000 in 1918, the year of the influenza epi' 
demic, to 1,656,000 in 1921. The acceleration of 
the marriage rate after the World War increased 
the number of new households at a rate in excess of 
the natural increase. All of the factors combined 
caused a demand for residential accommodations in 
American cities that sent rents upward, making it 
profitable to build and led to a residential building 
boom that reached its crest in 1925. Even before 
the value of new residential units reached its peak, 
however, there was a falling off in the rate of popu' 
lation growth. The tide of alien arrivals began to 
recede after 1924. Internal migration, while still 
large, failed to surpass the peak of 1922. There 
was an absolute decline in the excess of births over 
deaths despite the larger population. 

The decline in alien arrivals after 1924 and in 
migration from farms to cities after 1926 had its 
effect on new residential building. Residential 
rents reached their peak in 1925, and began a decline 
that was slow until 1930 and thereafter was rapid. 
New residential construction likewise began to 
recede after 1925. The rate of population growth 
continued to slacken until 1932, when for the first 
time in a century American cities lost population. 
That was the year when the movement from farms 
to cities reversed itself, and there was a net move- 
ment of 266,000 persons going from cities to rural 
areas. In the same year there was a net loss of 
113,000 aliens through emigration. After this year 
of absolute decline in urban population, new resi- 
dential building reached its lowest ebb in 1933. 



Even as the growth of population is most rapid at 
the periphery of the city, so also does most new 
construction of residential buildings take place in 
areas beyond the zone immediately surrounding the 
central business district. When the location of 
new residences is placed on a spot map of a city, it 
is surprising to note how few are located in the 
older neighborhoods. Figure 1 in the Map Supple- 
ment shows that most of the new residences erected 
in Detroit, Mich., m the first 4 months of 1937 were 
outside the boundaries of the area settled before 
1920. In Chicago, the area of 51 square miles sur- 
rounding the central business district in which 
population declined from 1920 to 1934 has very 
few structures less than 40 years old. 

In the periods of active building, solid rows of 
new homes are erected on the fringe of the city and 
few houses are erected in old neighborhoods even 
when there are vacant lots available. Although 
building costs are approximately the same in any 
location in the city, construction of a building in an 
old section may cause the new structure to lose a 
considerable part of its value because of the nature 
of its surroundings. 

As a result of the tendency of cities to add succes- 
sive rings of new residential structures by a series of 
spurts, there is frequently a considerable time lag 
between the ages of successive neighborhoods. A 
community of new homes built during the crest of 
one building boom may have no competition from 
other homes in the ensuing lull in construction. 
In the next building boom, some years later, other 
communities with homes in a newer and later style 
will tend to relegate this earlier crop of houses to 
the second rank. Neighborhoods in which the 
homes are built all at one time and of a similar type, 
however, may have greater stability than communi- 
ties in which the houses were built at different 
periods of time. 



95 



Chapter II 



The Form of City Growth 



i 



N the preceding chapter, it was noted that an 
increase of population and new construction activity 
in any city tends to cause the settled area to expand 
and its neighborhoods to move, and that the velocity 
of neighborhood change tends to vary with the rate 
of increase in the number of people in the urban 
community. The very next question that arises in 
the study of the dynamics of cities, however, is that 
of the direction and pattern of city and neighbor' 
hood growth. What is the shape of the path traced 
by the motion of growing communities? Faced with 
the fact that the addition of people and buildings to 
a city causes a change in its entire structure, students 
of city growth, property owners, or mortgage in' 
vestors desire to know in what direction the city 
will grow and what areas will be affected by the 
process of neighborhood change. 

In general, when a building boom is generated in 
a city, there are three ways in which new building 
may add to its supply of dwelling units. It may (1) 
expand vertically in areas already settled through 
the replacement of single-family by multifamily 
structures, (2) fill in the interstices in the existing 
settled area — i. e., build on vacant lots in blocks 
already partially developed with structures, or, (3) 
extend the existing settled area on the periphery of 
the city by the erection of new homes on newly 
subdivided land. 

The third method of growth — the lateral exten- 
sion of urban areas — has been described by one 
writer 1 as growth about the central core, or growth 
in successive concentric circles around the original 
settled nucleus. More recently, 2 the lateral exten' 

1 Hurd, R. M., op. tit., p. 59. 

2 Fisher, Ernest M., "Speculation in Suburban Lands," American Economic 
Review, Vol. XXIII, No. 1, Supplement, March 1933, p. 152. 

"Around the fringes of all urban areas of any size, lies the territory into 
which the distinctly urban uses of land must expand as the community grows. 
This area has very appropriately been called the 'penumbra' of the urban com- 



sion of cities has been diagnosed as a phenomenon 
which occurs by (a) axial growth —the extension of 
buildings in radial lines from the main body of the 
city along fast transportation lines so that the city 
assumes a star-shaped appearance, (b) growth of 
isolated nuclei of houses beyond the periphery of 
the main urban area, and (c) growth of isolated 
nuclei until they coalesce with each other or the 
main body of the city. 

These various ^rypes of growth are not mutually 
exclusive. In fact,Vall of them may be taking place 
simultaneously in the same city. In this chapter, 
however, we will discuss principally the lateral 
extension of cities in the several patterns outlined 
above. But first, we must set up a technique for the 
delineation of city growth. Just as the first step in 
the analysis of city structure showed the physical 
body of the city in one sweeping view at one period 
of time, the first step in studying the form of city 
growth is to compare a series of settled area maps 
showing the form of city structure at successive 
time periods. Settled area maps do not show verti' 

munity. * * * Here and there patches are definitely withdrawn from the 
rural or semirural uses, platted in small units served by common means of 
access, and offered for sale as building sites. Frequently, the public utilities 
necessary for urban uses are at least partially installed and completely promised, 
plans are presented for the development of such community activities as schools 
and churches, and houses and business premises are built. 

"These patches of development are widely scattered through the penumbra 
of the urban area, frequently without relation to one another or to the urban 
community as a whole. They are isolated nuclei which gradually grow by the 
process of accretion, absorbing more and more of the penumbra until their 
borders meet. When the whole of the area has been absorbed into one or the 
other of the nuclei, it becomes a part of the original urban community. 

"Thus, the advance of urban uses into the penumbra is by no means a steady 
or uniform one; the urban uses do not, as might be supposed, creep out into 
the penumbra at an even pace. They sometimes leap over considerable 
stretches of territory to establish themselves at spots remote from the fringe 
of existing uses, leaving the intervening area to be filled in slowly. 

"There are then two distinct phases of the growth of urban uses in the 
penumbra, one is the expansion stage during which the new nuclei are being 
established, and the other, the filling-in stage during which the interstices 
between nuclei are being absorbed." 



96 



cal or interstitial growth of areas already settled. 
They do show, however, the pattern that cities 
assume at different time periods and thus reflect 
central and axial growth, the expansion and coales- 
cence of existing outer nuclei, and the growth of 
new isolated nuclei on the fringe of the city. 

The material for the construction of these settled 
area maps for different time intervals is derived from 
several sources. First, there are United States quad- 
rangular survey maps of cities, showing the location 
of individual buildings for former periods of time 
beginning in the nineties. These maps do not 
cover regular time intervals, however, and vary con- 
siderably in the details presented. Second, Sanborn 
insurance atlases, showing location of individual 
houses are available for many cities for periods as 
early as the eighties. Third, in many cities such as 
Baltimore, Boston, and New Orleans, there are early 
maps, dating as far back as the period 1760 to 1800, 
that show the location of the individual structures. 
Fourth, early "bird's-eye" photographs of entire 
cities, such as Chicago in 1857, indicate the extent 
of the settled area at a given time. Fifth, from his- 
tories of cities, or from the files of newspaper 
accounts, information as to the building up of cer- 
tain areas can frequently be obtained. Sixth, the 
record of building permits shows the age of the 
buildings in a given area. Seventh, from real prop- 
erty surveys showing age of structures, the period 
of time during which an area was first occupied by 
buildings may be derived. Eighth, the appearance 
and style of architecture of the oldest remaining 
buildings in an area tend to corroborate other 
records as to the age of structures. T^inth, the 
testimony of the oldest inhabitants as to the date 
when certain areas were first settled is useful in 
filling out gaps in the data or in corroborating other 
evidence. 

When the material from these various sources is 
assembled, compared, and analyzed, a settled area 
map of the city for a certain period of time may be 
prepared by filling in all areas where there is more 
than one house to the acre. All clusters of dwell- 
ings are included in the settled area. The urban 
mass, as thus defined, varies greatly in density of 
buildings and population, and these variations are 
not indicated on the settled area maps. These maps 
do indicate, however, the general shape, direction, 



and velocity of the lateral extension of the city as it 
increases in population. 

The settled area maps may be presented in two 
forms. In the first, there is a series of maps, each 
one showing the settled area of the city at a given 
time. The growth of the city can be observed by 
comparison. In the second form, the growth of 
the settled area of the city is shown on one map 
which indicates the original nucleus of settlement 
and the growth added in each successive time inter- 
val. Both types are illustrated in figure 35 which 
shows the growth of the settled areas in the Chi- 
cago metropolitan region. 

History tended to repeat itself during the century 
that Chicago grew from a hamlet of a dozen log huts 
in 1830 to the fifth largest city in the world. As a 
result, several of the various types of city growth 
outlined above took place in Chicago simultaneously 
during each of the periods of growth mapped in fig- 
ure 35. 

Thus, from 1830 to 1857, there was, at the same 
time, a filling in of partially developed blocks in the 
area of first settlement, axial growth along plank 
roads — Milwaukee Avenue, Madison Street, and 
Ogden Avenue, central growth between the radial 
lines of the plank roads, and the growth of isolated 
nuclei beyond the fringe of the main settled area. 

In the period from 1857 to 1873, all these processes 
of urban growth continued. There was a growth 
of houses on vacant lots between existing buildings 
in the older settled area. There was continuation 
of axial growth along Milwaukee Avenue, Madison 
Street, Ogden Avenue, Blue Island Avenue, and 
the Rock Island Railroad, which caused the settled 
area to extend farthest along these fast transporta- 
tion highways. There was central growth or 
filling in between the radial lines. There was the 
establishment of isolated nuclei of growth on the 
periphery of the city. Finally, the earlier patches 
of settlement just beyond the fringe of the main 
body of the city of 1857 had coalesced with the 
central urban mass. 

The period 1873 to 1899 witnessed a repetition of 
the process just described with the addition of 
another phenomenon — the replacement of single- 
family structures by apartments. Again, new radial 
lines of growth shot out; again, central growth 
filled in interstices between axial growths; again, 
isolated patches of growth sprang up on the periph- 



97 



FIGURE 35 



THE CHICAGO METROPOLITAN REGION 



(A) SETTLED AREAS AT DIFFERENT PERIODS 








"A 








<■ ~ 


■'. *T 


1936 


T 


v *. 


vl 




>- 


* * H 








>*-•', ■* 




- *- 


k 




j 


r . 

r 


• •/' 






- 


t - A 


J.f\_ 




X- 


.'■ 


* J*' * 


*jp rPfc*^ 


-■i 


-4T 


"• i 


'i 



(B) GROWTH OF SETTLED AREAS 1830 - 1936 




1830 ORIGINAL SETTLEMENT * 

1830 - 1857 [Ml 

1857 - 1873 f 

1873 - 1899 

1899 - 1936 f£jl 



98 



ery of the city; and again, the scattered nuclei 
just beyond the main body of the earlier settled 
area were absorbed in the central growth of the 
main urban community. 

And in the period from 1900 to 1929, there was 
first, replacement of single-family structures and 
utilization of vacant lots in Hyde Park and Wilson 
Avenue and the near North Side areas by multi- 
family dwelling units. Second, there was a filling 
in of partially built blocks in many sections of 
the city such as Hyde Park and Wilson Avenue. 
Thxrd, there was a radial extension of the settled 
area or axial growth in long streamers along fast 
transportation lines on the North Shore, and west- 
ward and northwestward. Fourth, there was central 
growth, or the filling in of vacant areas between the 
radial lines of growth. This filling in was facilitated 
by crosstown street-car lines on the northwest and 
southwest sides. Fifth, new isolated nuclei of 
growth were established in the penumbra on the 
fringe of the city. Sixth, there was an expansion 
of existing nuclei of growth until they coalesced 
with each other and formed continuous bands of 
growth. Evanston, Wilmette, Kenil worth, Winnet- 
ka, Glencoe, Highland Park, Highwood, Lake Forest, 
Lake Bluff, North Chicago, and Waukegan grew 
together on the North Shore until they practically 
formed one continuous streamer of urban growth 
northward along the lake shore. Similarly on the 
west along the Chicago 6? Northwestern Railroad, 
Oak Park, Forest Park, Maywood, Bellwood, Elm- 
hurst, Lombard, and Wheaton tended to coalesce 
in a band of growth. Northwest, along another 
line of the Chicago & Northwestern Railroad, 
Norwood Park, Park Ridge, Des Plaines, Mount 
Prospect, Arlington Heights, Palestine, and Barring- 
ton tended to reach toward each other in their 
process of growth. 

Thus, in Chicago's most recent period of growth, 
we had all the forms of growth simultaneously in 
evidence — vertical and interstitial expansion, axial 
and central growth, the expansion and coalescence 
of existing outer nuclei, and the growth of new iso- 
lated nuclei on the fringe of the city. The reader 
may also study and compare the patterns of growth 
of the settled areas of 11 other cities in the Map 
Supplement. 3 The latter maps are of the compara- 
tive type — each period of growth is illustrated by 

a Figs. 22-24, see pp. 157-159. 



a separate map for each city. Also for comparative 
purposes, every map shown in this group in the 
Map Supplement is drawn to the same scale as 
every other map on the same page. Map scales on 
different pages, however, are not comparable. The 
growth of several of the cities illustrated there is 
discussed below. 

In New York City, the first settlement was at the 
tip of Manhattan Island; central and interstitial 
growth prevailed until the early lSOO's. Only 
small tentacles of growth had stretched northward, 
and a few isolated nuclei had been established by 
1861. By 1881, radial bands of settlement had 
grown north along the New York, New Haven, 
fe? Hartford Railroad. At the same time isolated 
nuclei of settlement had formed along the two lines 
of the Long Island Railroad. By 1903 these detached 
settlements coalesced to form continuous bands, 
and by 1934 they had spread on each side of the 
transportation system to cover a broad band of 
growth. Meanwhile, the detached settlements in 
the Bronx had coalesced between 1903 and 1934 to 
form a solid urban body. The present borough of 
Brooklyn originally consisted of a number of separate 
villages which gradually grew together into one 
urban mass. Thus, New York City expanded by 
axial growth, the flinging out of detached nuclei of 
settlements and the filling in by the process of central 
growth, and the growing together of isolated settle- 
ments. As the original detached settlements, like 
Greenwich Village and Harlem, were absorbed by 
the expansion of the main body of the city, additional 
independent settlements were developed in the 
Oranges and Maplewood, N. J., in towns like Pel- 
ham, Larchmont, Scarsdale in Westchester County, 
N. Y., and in Hempstead, Garden City, and other 
settlements on Long Island. 

In Washington, D. C, the first areas of settlement 
were widely scattered over the four quadrants of 
the city, but the settlement in 1801 consisted of 
several nuclei along the axis of Pennsylvania Avenue 
from Sixth Street to Georgetown. By 1856 these 
settlements had grown together in irregular bands 
of growth that widened around the navy yard and 
the Capitol, and reached their greatest width be- 
tween Sixteenth Street and New Jersey Avenue. 
There were large detached settlements of growth 
in the southwest quadrant and detached settle- 
ments beyond the main settled area but still within 



99 



Florida Avenue in the northwest quadrant. By 
1887, all of this stringlike growth and the isolated 
nuclei had become welded together and had bulged 
out beyond Florida Avenue to the northwest. 
From 1887 to 1917, there was growth on the periph- 
ery and radial extension in the northwest along 
Wisconsin Avenue and along Georgia Avenue. 
Finally, in the last period from 1917 to 1934, there 
were great radial extensions of the settled area 
along Connecticut Avenue and to the east of 
Sixteenth Street and northwestward, leaving vacant 
intervening spaces between the bands of radial 
growth m Rock Creek Park and in the area blocked 
off from direct access to the center of the city by 
Soldiers 1 Home. While the earlier isolated nuclei 
were coalescing in the main body of the city, other 
isolated settlements sprang up in Arlington County, 
Va., and in adjacent areas in Maryland, which in 
turn began to flow together. 

Baltimore is a good example of central growth, 
particularly for the period prior to 1904, when it 
grew solidly in compact concentric circles around 
the starting nucleus north of the Patapsco River. 
After 1904, electric street-car lines enabled it to 
send out long streamers of growth northward. 

Philadelphia grew mainly by central growth be- 
fore 1840, but between 1840 and 1881 detached 
settlements grew up beyond the periphery. These 
settlements expanded in size by 1900, and finally 
had grown together into an almost solid mass by 
1934. Meanwhile, additional nuclei of settlement 
were flung out beyond the main body of growth. 

Charleston, W. Va., from the starting point on 
the east bank of the Elk River at its junction with 
the Kanawha River, grew first mainly eastward 
along the narrow river valley, and then from 1902 to 
1912 expanded toward both the east and west. 
Westward growth continued from 1912 to 1922. 
From 1922 to 1933, some settlements spread into the 
hills as a result of improved concrete roads, and 
others grew across the Kanawha River. In the case 
of Charleston, the topography virtually compelled a 
stringlike growth along the narrow river valley, 
hemmed in by high hills on each side. There was 
no room for isolated nuclei to spring up until the 
way was opened by concrete roads. 

New Orleans expanded along the bend of the river 
until 1906; but from 1906 to 1929, it flung out radial 
bands of growth toward Lake Pontchartrain and es- 



tablished a few settlements across the river from the 
main body of the city. 

Thus, while some cities exhibit every type of 
growth simultaneously and spasmodically repeat the 
process, as did Chicago in its 100 years of growth, 
other cities tend to expand in more orderly fashion. 
In some cases, one form of city growth predom- 
inates and other types of growth are subordinated. 
Although the same forces are in operation in all 
growing cities, the intensity of the impact of those 
forces determines the type of growth that will pre- 
dominate at any time. Examination of the maps of 
the 12 illustrative cities referred to in this chapter 
indicates that, generally, the more rapid the growth 
of the urban area, the more rapidly will axial lines of 
growth be extended and outlying satellite areas, or 
nuclei, be established, grow, and coalesce with the 
urban mass. Slowly growing cities will tend to fill 
out interstices and have greater central growth with 
sluggish axial growth and only little expansion of 
outer nuclei. On the other hand, rapidly growing 
cities like Chicago (see fig. 35) will have active 
growth of all types — axial growth and the estab- 
lishment, expansion, and coalescence of outer nuclei 
will proceed apace. The rapid growth of business 
and industrial activity at the central core with its 
consequent attraction of new inhabitants acts as a 
catalyst to the physical growth of the city itself and 
its outlying areas. 

In the process of lateral growth, however, the 
topography of the urban area is a limiting factor. It 
is evident that hills, mountains, rivers, bays and 
lakes affect the form of cities located near them. 
Cities in narrow river valleys assume long stringlike 
forms like Charleston, W. Va. The configurations 
of rivers, bays, and ocean inlets affect the form of the 
settled areas of New York, Boston, San Francisco 
and other cities. Chicago's shape is influenced by 
the contour of Lake Michigan. Cities on one side 
of a broad deep river, such as New Orleans and 
Kansas City, expand chiefly on the side originally 
settled. A swamp limits the growth of New Or- 
leans on one side. Mountain barriers, arising out of 
a plain, limit the expansion of Salt Lake City. 

Such natural barriers to growth are overcome only 
with difficulty. Man's ingenuity has enabled him 
to throw bridges across wide rivers, like the spans 
connecting Manhattan Island with Queens, Brook- 
lyn, Bronx, and New Jersey and the Oakland and 



100 



Golden Gate Bridges in San Francisco. He tun- 
nels under rivers, as in the case of the Holland and 
Lincoln Tunnels under the Hudson River between 
New York and New Jersey. He reclaims land 
from lakes, as illustrated by the filled-in border of 
Lake Michigan forming Chicago's parkways be- 
tween Sheridan Road and the lake. He fills in 
swamps, as in the case of the site of New York's 1939 
World's Fair. He tunnels through mountains and 
levels off hills, as in Los Angeles. He fills in ra- 
vines, as in Washington, D. C. Numerous cases 
are known where streams have been diverted, from 
their original courses. 

All such cases, however, are limited by the bene- 
fits accruing from the expenditures necessary to 
alter or circumvent natural barriers. Generally, 
cities grow within the limits imposed by the to- 
pography of the terrain until the bursting growth 
makes large expenditures for such alterations or 
circumventions economically feasible. Thus, the 
principles of growth already discussed are generally 
applicable only within the limits imposed by 
nature. 

The growth of the cities illustrated in the Map 
Supplement demonstrates that, except for growth 
facilitated by overcoming natural barriers, central 
and axial growth usually take place in broad, flat 
plains. On these, cities may extend built-up areas 
with equal facility in any direction. On the flat 
expanses of ground available about the core of the 
city, the chief force influencing city growth is the 
availability of transportation. Outer residential or 
business areas must have access to the central 
business and industrial districts. 

The growth of isolated nuclei of houses beyond the 
periphery of the city is facilitated by suburban rail- 
roads with stations at intervals along the line, or by 
industrial plants furnishing employment to workers 
living nearby, or by prevailing automobile 
transportation which permits a wide diffusion of 
settlement. 

Axial growth is the result of the existence of faster 
transportation from the center of the city to the 
periphery along certain main highways, elevated 
roads, or suburban railroads than in the intervening 
areas between these radial lines. The time re- 
quired to reach the center of the city from all points 
of the periphery of the star-shaped city may be 
approximately equal. Of course, urban growth may 



extend farther in one direction in terms of time 
consumed in travel because of the superior attrac- 
tions of one section of the city, or because of custo- 
mary routes of travel. 

Central growth is the result of forms of transpor- 
tation that tend to be of approximately equal speed 
from the center of the city in all directions toward 
the periphery. It is not a question of absolute but 
of relative speed. Central growth may be as charac- 
teristic of automobile as of horse transportation. If 
the means of transportation is prefectly mobile and 
not tied to fixed routes or rails, urban growth may 
extend in concentric circles from the business center. 
Central growth also takes place as the result of a 
filling in of the interstices between radial lines of 
growth. There is a limit to the extension of settled 
areas along radial lines. After a certain point is 
reached, it is found that tj^ time consumed in going 
to the most distant points on these radial lines is 
greater than the time required to take a slower 
crosstown line and to transfer to the main radial 
line at a point closer to the center of the city. 

It is a noteworthy fact that the manner in which 
cities have grown has not changed with the evolu- 
tion in the means of transportation during the past 
century. Chicago manifested the same types of 
growth during the horse car and early railroad era as 
during the electric street car and automobile ages. 

While the various forms of city growth are not 
dependent entirely upon the form of transportation, 
it is true, nevertheless, that certain types of internal 
transportation within the city have favored one 
form of city growth rather than another. While 
there have been differences in the kinds of intraurban 
transportation in different cities, at the same time 
there have been certain major trends in the evolu- 
tion of intraurban transportation in the United 
States that have influenced the form of city growth 
in certain periods. 

The evolution of internal transportation in Ameri- 
can cities may be divided in three main periods. 
The first period, that prior to 1890, was character- 
ized mainly by horse-car lines, with steam railroads 
and cable cars (after 1882) furnishing fast trans- 
portation on main routes in some cities. The period 
between 1890 and 1917 was the era of the electric 
surface car. In this period, also, elevated railroads 
and subways provided the most rapid transporta- 
tion on some radial lines in a few large cities. 



101 



Finally, the third period, from 1917 to the present, 
has been characterized by widespread use of the 
automobile. 

The effect of the evolution in transportation 
upon the growth of cities is shown by the changes 
in the configuration of cities. As may be seen from 
figures 22-24 in the Map Supplement, most cities 
had a very compact circular form until late in the 
nineteenth century. In Chicago, New York, and 
a few other cities, cable lines and suburban steam 
railroads permitted axial growth in long streamers, 
but Baltimore, and most other cities relying prin- 
cipally upon horse-car transportation, were con- 
centrated as closely as topography would permit 
around the central business district. Central growth 
characterised this period prior to 1880 when horse 
stagecoaches or horse-car lines were the chief 
forms of internal transportation for all American 
cities. 

Axial growth was promoted by cables that were 
installed on main trunk lines in a few cities like 
Chicago and New York beginning in the eighties. 
The cable-car lines, which roughly doubled the 
horse rate of speed, increased in the United States 
from 20 miles of track in 1883 to a peak track 
mileage of 632 in 1895. Elevated lines, operated 
originally by steam power, first appeared in New 
York m 1878 and in Chicago m 1890. Elevated 
lines still form a main internal transportation sys- 
tem for Chicago, but they are relatively unimportant 
elsewhere. 

The revolutionary change in transportation that 
affected nearly all American cities and enabled them 
to spread out in far-flung lines was the advent of 
the electric surface lines about 1890. The rapid 
growth in the mileage of electric surface lines from 
1,262 in 1890 to 10,363 in 1895, and to 40,808 in 
1912 enabled American cities to grow in bands along 
street-car lines in the decades from 1890 to 1910. 
Meanwhile, animal traction disappeared, while sub- 
ways were inaugurated and extended in the largest 
American cities. 4 The transportation lines in Wash- 
ington, D. C, are shown in figure 36 for four dif- 
ferent periods of the city's history. Note, in each 
period, the settled area in the vicinity of trasporta- 
tion lines and the lack of settlement in areas not 
served by local public conveyances. 

4 U. S. Department of Commerce, Statistical Abstract of the United States, 
1937 (Washington 1938), pp. 394, 399. 



The last great revolutionary change to date in 
internal transportation in American cities was af- 
forded by the automobile. Between 1900 and 
1937, the number of registered passenger cars 6 in- 
creased from 8,000 to 25,500,000, and their use by 
all except the lowest income groups became almost 
universal. Street-car traffic declined; neighborhoods 
built along street-car lines were supplemented by 
neighborhoods that were reached largely by auto- 
mobiles. Moderate elevations, made accessible by 
hard-surface roads or high-grade residential develop- 
ments near automobile highways, became favored 
sites for a new type of development that was not 
tied to the fixed line of street-car rails. Since the 
area on the periphery increases with the square of 
the distance from the city, the automobile opened 
up extensive areas because it had a speed on open 
highways several times greater than that of electric 
street cars. 

In congested cities, outer drives, as in Chicago, or 
elevated and express highways, as in New York, 
enabled the automobile to speed past congested 
areas. To most cities, the automobile opened up 
new areas on the periphery so that its effect was to 
add a section built during the automobile age to 
sections that were the products of street-car trans- 
portation. Some cities like Detroit, Los Angeles, 
and Miami had their most rapid growth during the 
automobile age. 

The (a) continued development of superhighways 
and consequent easier access to rural areas from 
central parts of cities, and (b) possible future mass 
production of aircraft so that transportation by air 
may be common for large segments of the popuk' 
tion, may become highly significant in the future 
growth of American cities. What types of growth 
will such developments foster? What shape will 
cities assume? Will decentralization of cities become 
complete? 

These questions cannot, of course, be answered 
with certainty. Possibly the same principles of 
growth, which applied in the three main periods 
just reviewed, may be depended upon in future 
years should superhighways and aircraft become 
common. Because of the fraternal nature of man, 
dwellings probably will not be scattered in helter- 

5 Automobile Manufacturers Association, Automobile Facts and Figures, 
1938 (New York City), p. 16. 



102 



FIGURE 36 



GROWTH OF SETTLED AREAS AND TRANSPORTATION LINES 

WASHINGTON, D. C. 
1857 - 1938 





FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION 
DIVISION OF ECONOMICS S STATISTICS 



103 



skelter fashion over the landscape but may continue 
to be congregated in communities. Dwellings may 
not be built so closely together but may still 
cluster. One school of thought holds that these 
clusters will not be isolated but will still be close 
to rather than on — arterial superhighways radiat- 
ing from cities in axial fashion. Distances from 
outer nuclei to urban centers may be greater, but 
may still be easily accessible by future forms ot 
transportation. Although there is already a tend' 
ency for manufacturing plants to locate apart from 



large urban centers, the increasing complexity of 
modern life will probably continue to make it 
imperative that our main shopping, financial, and 
business centers be located in the inner portion of 
the urban organism. Increasingly rapid transporta- 
tion forms hasten the tempo of life and allow for 
more far-flung urban organisms. Radial rather than 
central growth probably will be accentuated, and 
congestion will probably decrease in urban centers. 
Complete decentralization of cities, however, is 
extremely doubtful in any organized society. 



104 



Chapter III 

Changes In Urban Land Uses 



T„ 



.HE pressure of population increase which 
brings about changes in the external form of a 
city also causes internal movements of residential 
neighborhoods and changing land uses. The latter 
will be treated in this chapter and the former re- 
served for discussion in following pages. The 
technique for showing the patterns formed by 
changing uses of the urban site requires the prepa- 
ration of a series of maps showing the location of 
areas devoted to the principal land uses at succes- 
sive intervals of time. By comparing the areas 
occupied by the different types of commercial, 
industrial and residential uses at different dates, 
the pattern of movement of each kind of use may 
be delineated. 

The dynamic maps used in the previous chapter 
may be cross-hatched to designate the different 
types of land use in any period, and comparison of 
succeeding periods shows the movement of business, 
industrial, and residential areas. They also show 
the lateral extension of the urban site to new areas 
but do not show two other forms of expansion. 
These are, namely, the filling in of vacant inter- 
stices in a built-up, or settled, area and the ver- 
tical expansion of buildings. Thus, residences 
may be erected on vacant lots between houses in 
established home areas; or large apartment build- 
ings may replace single or two-family structures; or 
large department stores covering entire blocks may 
occupy the ground formerly covered by small 
stores; or large office buildings may succeed smaller 
office buildings on the same site. Expansion of 
uses by increased intensity of utilisation of the 
same area must be considered, as well as the lateral 
expansion or the shifting of location of given types 
of land uses. 

The increased intensity of land utilization is, of 
course, most noticeable in the central portions of 
rapidly growing large cities. In Chicago: 



* * * the Chicago Loop buildings under the pressure of 
expanding business confined to a limited area have tapped 
successively higher layers of air. By 1893 over 10 percent of 
the air layer from 7 to 12 stories had been filled with buildings, 
and the highest towers extended to 16 stories. By 1923, when 
the new zoning law permitted tower buildings that contained 
as many as 44 stories, 37 percent of the area from 7 to 12 
stories had been occupied, 17 percent of that between 12 and 16 
stories, and over 6 percent of that between 16 and 22 stories. 
From 1923 to 1930 a new crop of a score of tower buildings 
arose in Chicago, which created a new skyline. * * * i 

As a result, by 1933 over 50 percent of the area 
from 7 to 12 stories had been occupied, 37 percent 
of that between 12 and 16 stories, over 17 percent 
of that between 16 and 22 stories, and more than 
1 percent of that between 22 and 44 stories. 1 

The increased intensity of land use in large cities 
is also typified by several sections in New York 
City. The segment of that city bounded by For- 
tieth and Sixtieth Streets and Third and Seventh 
Avenues had a rapid vertical expansion in the last 
half century. After the Civil War, confined space 
in lower Manhattan led to movement uptown and 
a gradual filling in of vacant interstices. At first 
the area was principally residential. With the 
building of Grand Central Terminal shortly after 
the turn of the century, however, the area became 
a focal business center. As the residences were 
displaced by office and business buildings, space 
became increasingly scarce and vertical expansion 
was accelerated. The period of most rapid ver- 
tical growth has been since the World War. At 
the present time, practically the entire area referred 
to above is covered with office buildings — the 
most recent additions being in Rockefeller Center. 
The two aerial photographs shown in figure 37 
disclose the change in the Grand Central zone in 
the short time between 1922 and 1929. 



1 Hoyt, Homer, op. at., pp. 329-330. 



105 



FIGURE 37 



THE INCREASED INTENSITY OF LAND USE 

IN THE GRAND CENTRAL ZONE 

NEW YORK CITY 




COURTESY OF FAIRCHILO AERIAL SURVEYS, INC. , NEW YORK. 

106 



FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION 
DIVISION OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS 



Thus, expansion by increased intensity of use 
must be studied by the analyst of the growth of any 
particular city, as well as lateral expansion. In the 
remainder of this monograph, however, we are 
principally concerned with the movement or the 
shifting of location of different types of land uses. 
The data for land-use maps portraying the segre- 
gated uses of land at prior periods of time are more 
difficult to secure than material for settled area maps. 
For proper historical perspective, it is necessary to 
ascertain not merely the fact that a building occu- 
pies a certain plot at a given time, but that it is de- 
voted to a specific kind of use. In the case of many 
factory buildings, the ground plan of the structure 
may indicate the nature of the use, but this method 
cannot be employed in the case of light manufactur- 
ing plants which frequently occupy space in struc- 
tures similar in form to office or commercial buildings. 
To reconstruct the land-use maps of former periods 
of time, reliance must be placed chiefly upon old 
photographs, the examination of surviving buildings 
of the period, historical accounts and records, and the 
verbal accounts provided by old residents of the city. 

What are the principles governing the movement 
of the different types of land uses whose location 
was described in chapter II, part I? It will be con- 
venient to use the method of treatment therein 
described and start with the movement of land uses 
at the center of the city. We will then consider, in 
order, the changes in the pattern of uses from that 
central point outward to the periphery. 

Thus, in a growing city, changing land uses begin 
at the center with the expansion of retail or financial 
uses in the downtown area. In their process of 
growth, these uses press outward and impinge upon 
other types of land use of less intensity, forcing 
them, in turn, to thrust outward into the next en- 
circling belt of land uses. Persons occupying resi- 
dences near the heart of the city go farther out to 
live as business invades the area of their homes. 

Just as a stone thrown in a pool causes a series of 
expanding circles, radiating outward from the point 
where the stone hit the water, so expansion of the 
highest land value uses at the business center of the 
city may impinge on other uses of less intensity and 
they, in turn, on others. Thus, in Chicago, as the 
retail commercial uses expanded from State Street to 
Wabash and Michigan Avenues, which were form- 
erly occupied by residential and then by wholesale 



houses, they forced the wholesale uses southward on 
Wabash Avenue and northward across the Chicago 
River. Similarly, up to 1910 there was a tendency 
for factories located west of the Chicago "Loop 11 
along the branches of the Chicago River, to expand 
on the near west, north, and south sides. 

As the factories invaded the residential districts 
but failed to occupy the entire territory, there was 
an area called the zone of transition. This area was 
in a state of social disorganization and was frequently 
a breeding place for vice and crime. However, since 
it was expected that the continued expansion of in- 
dustrial areas would ultimately absorb such land, 
this situation was regarded as only temporary. 

Certain fundamental changes have occurred, how- 
ever, which may slacken or stop almost completely 
this lateral expansion of commercial and industrial 
uses. In the first place, the introduction of the 
steel-frame skyscraper and the invention of the 
steam and electric elevator beginning in the eighties, 
led to a vertical rather than to a lateral expansion of 
central business districts. These business centers, 
like Rockefeller Center, can house thousands of 
workers in a single block. The skyline of Chicago 
in 1880 was one of six-story buildings. The height 
of the highest buildings in that city was successively 
raised to 10, 16, 22, and 44 stories. Downtown 
and midtown Manhattan in New York has ex- 
panded vertically so that today New York has 
several buildings with 80 and even 100 stories. As 
a result, there was much less lateral expansion in 
the area occupied by the central business district. 
The central business district also has been affected 
by another factor in recent decades, namely, the 
development of outlying business centers. 

Secondly, the use of land for wholesaling may 
cease to expand because of direct purchases from 
factories in small quantities. Formerly large stores 
of goods were maintained in warehouses and whole- 
sale houses near the central business district. There 
has been a great decline in the wholesale function 
as retailers buy goods directly from the factories. 
Quicker deliveries and changing styles have also 
caused increased hand-to-mouth buying from both 
wholesalers and factories. 

Thirdly, there has been a great slackening in the 
expansion of industrial areas near central business 
districts. There are numerous factors already men- 
tioned which tend to make it more economical for a 



163253—39- 



107 



factory to locate in a specialized industrial district or on 
an outer belt line rather than in the heart of the city. 2 

As a result of the slackening in the expansion of 
commercial and industrial uses near central business 
districts, the so-called zone of transition surrounding 
the central business district has become a blighted 
area. In its present form, it is not wanted for any 
type of use except possibly for parking lots. New 
residential construction is discouraged because the 
value of a new home placed in slum surroundings 
may be less than its reproduction cost. On the 
other hand, to destroy slum neighborhoods would 
require the wholesale purchase and wrecking of 
buildings on wide areas of lands that are owned by 
thousands of individuals. Even by means of con- 
demnation proceedings, the cost of acquisition of such 
properties is too great to warrant low cost housing 
projects; hence, the area is reclaimed neither whole- 
sale nor piecemeal, and it progressively deteriorates. 

New homes for the middle and upper classes tend 
to be located as far away as possible from these 
deteriorated areas and are usually erected on vacant 
land on the periphery of cities. The movement of 
these types of residential areas will be discussed in 
the next chapter. 

While the central business district has slowed up 
in its rate of expansion, it does, nevertheless, tend 
to move. The retail shopping center tends to be 
pulled in the direction of the best residential area. 
Thus the stores in New York moved up Fifth Ave- 
nue in the wake of the high grade residential move- 
ment. The retail shopping center of Kansas City, 
Mo., moved southward from the river front to 
Third and Fourth Streets on Main Street, to Ninth 
on Main Street, and to Eleventh and Twelfth 
Streets on Walnut Street, as the high grade residen- 
tial area grew southward. 

The central business district of Chicago moved 
southward on Michigan and Wabash Avenues, and 
State, Dearborn, and La Salle Streets when the trend 
of fashionable direction was south. When the 
Lake Shore Drive and the Gold Coast Belt developed 
on the near North Side, and finally when the 
Michigan Avenue Bridge was constructed in 1920, 
the office building area burst the boundaries of the 
"Loop" and grew northward up Michigan Avenue. 
Similarly, the development of Miami Beach and the 
northeast section of Miami has pulled the business 

See pt. I, ch. II. pp. 20-23. 



section of Miami eastward on Flagler Street. In 
Seattle, the business district has moved northeast 
toward the higher grade residential sections. In 
Detroit, the business section has tended to move 
northward up Woodward Avenue as the result of 
the growth of the higher grade area northward; 
but there have been pulls also on the east and west 
which have tended to keep the central business dis- 
trict near its point of origin. 

Thus, in growing cities, the expansion of financial 
and business uses in the central portion presses 
outward and impinges on other land uses. They, 
in turn, thrust outward and impinge upon the 
next encircling belt of uses. The retail shopping 
center tends to be pulled in the direction of growth 
of the best residential areas. Lateral growth of 
financial, business, and retail uses of land has 
slowed up because of the vertical growth made 
possible by new inventions. Wholesale areas have 
declined in importance and also leaned toward 
vertical growth. Manufacturing zones have tended 
to locate in specialized districts rather than near 
central business districts. Changes in speed and 
direction of growth of business, commercial, and 
industrial uses of land have caused the growth of 
blighted areas within and adjacent to these uses. 
We will next consider the pattern of commercial 
areas outside the central business district and the 
movement of industrial land uses. 

Commercial land uses outside the central business 
district. — In a small city, most of the commercial 
land uses, except that of isolated neighborhood 
grocery stores, drug stores, or gasoline filling sta- 
tions, are concentrated in a central business district. 
The growth of population, however, which causes 
shifts in residential neighborhoods, likewise changes 
the simple commercial structure of a city with one 
business nucleus into a more complex pattern. 
The rapid growth of the population on the periph- 
ery of the city and the decline in the number of 
persons living near the center lead to the develop- 
ment of satellite business subcenters in the area of 
new homes. There are three forms of commercial 
areas that tend to rise beyond the limits of the 
original central business district as the city grows 
in population. 3 

» For a thorough description of the various types of outlying business dis- 
tricts see Malcolm J. Proudfoot in Weimer and Hoyt, Principles of Urban 
Real Estate, Ronald Press, 1939, pp. 94-97- 



108 



The first is the line of stores strung out along the 
principal thoroughfares leading from the central 
business district. The main business center of the 
city may in fact move out along one of these prnv 
cipal highways as in the case of Euclid Avenue in 
Cleveland. The commercial uses along the main 
highways beyond the heart of central business dis- 
tricts are devoted to secondary commercial uses of 
less intensity than those in the downtown area. 
Thus in Charleston, W. Va., there is a growth of a 
line of stores along Washington Street. 

A second form of commercial area is the outlying 
business center located at the converging point of 
two mam automobile thoroughfares or at a street- 
car transfer point, at subway, elevated, or suburban 
railroad stations. Here there is a piling up or 
intensification of commercial uses. The growth 
of these embryonic clusters of stores, providing 
groceries or drugs, to adult business subcenters 
with full complements cf motion-picture theaters, 
banks, restaurants, branch department stores, and 
specialty stores, is carefully described in RatclifPs 
thorough study of the outlying business centers of 
Detroit. 4 

Finally there is the third form of commercial 
area, the isolated neighborhood store, or store 
cluster, in the middle of a block of homes or on a 
thinly developed traffic artery. 

The central business nucleus, located at the con- 
verging point of the main highways leading into 
the city, is surrounded by satellite business centers 
at the intersections of highways along the periphery 
of the city. Lining the principal thoroughfares are 
also strings of stores, and in the midst of some home 
areas are isolated stores. The outlying commercial 
areas have grown rapidly at the expense of the 
central business district. 

In Philadelphia, in the early periods prior to the 
Civil War, practically all the retail trade and bank' 
ing of the city was carried on in the confines of the 
present central business district because the entire 
settled area of the city was then in close proximity 
to the downtown section, and the present outlying 
shopping centers did not exist. As the city ex- 
panded in area and population, however, outlying 
community centers developed that attracted an in- 



4 RatclifF, Richard U., An Examination Into Some Characteristics of Out- 
lying Retail AJucleations in the City of Detroit. A doctoral dissertation — 
University of Michigan, 1935. 



creasing proportion of the retail trade. In 1935 the 
volume of retail sales made by the stores outside the 
central area was 62.6 percent of the total for the 
entire city." 

In Chicago, the elevated lines concentrated busi- 
ness in the central district or the "Loop, 1 '' in the 
period from 1900 to 1915; but as new home areas 
developed beyond the elevated lines, there was a 
rapid rise in the relative importance of outlying 
shopping centers from 1915 to 1928. While the 
estimated value of land in the central business dis- 
trict of Chicago rose from $600,000,000 to $1,000,- 
000,000 in the period 1910 to 1928, a rise of 67 
percent, the estimated sales value of land in the 
outlying commercial sections increased from $200,' 
000,000 to $1,333,000,000, or a gain of 567 percent 
in the same period. 11 

In general, the rise of the outlying business center 
has been the result of three major factors: First, 
the rapid growth of population on the periph- 
ery of the city and the decline in both the number 
and purchasing power of people living near the main 
business center; second, the friction of automobile 
traffic congestion in the central business district and 
the lack of fast transportation other than automobile 
from the new home areas of many cities to the down' 
town area; third, the development of facilities and 
services in the outlying shopping centers that are 
comparable to those provided in the downtown area. 
This development has been made possible by the 
location of the motion'picture theater, the rise of 
the outlying bank, the growth of chain stores, and 
the establishment of outlying department stores. 

The movement of industrial land uses. — The pat- 
tern of movement of industrial land uses is signify 
cant only in cities that have industrial establish- 
ments and scarcely need be considered in cities like 
Washington, D. C, or Miami, Fla. However, the 
change in the pattern of location of industries in 
large manufacturing centers is striking. The chang' 
ing location of industries in Chicago since 1857 may 
be observed in figure 38. 

Prior to 1873 the early industrial growth of Chi- 
cago followed the Chicago River and its branches 
near the central part of the city because it was along 

6 U. S. Dept. of Commerce, Census of Business: 1935, Intra-City Business 
Census Statistics for Philadelphia, Pa. (Washington, D. C, May 1937), p. 25. 
The several different types of urban business districts are classified in this 
publication on pp. 3-5. 

6 Hoyt, Homer, op. cit., p. M7. 



109 



FIGURE 38 



GROWTH OF CENTRAL BUSINESS AND MANUFACTURING AREAS 

CHICAGO 1857 - 1930 



MANUFACTURING 



CENTRAL BUSINESS ^ ZONE OF TRANSITION 





1873 





SOURCE HOYT, HOMER, ONE HUNDRED YEARS OF LAND VALUES IN CHICAGO, 
(CHICAGO, UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS, 1933) P. 319 



110 



FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION 
DIVISION OF ECONOMICS 8 STATISTICS 



the river that the rail and lake commerce was inter' 
changed, and a large proportion of the laboring popu- 
lation lived. As river and lake commerce declined 
in relative importance in Chicago, there began an 
expansion of industry in the area of the central 
business district of Chicago on the west, north, and 
south. This period of central growth culminated in 
1910, and thereafter there was a rapid development 
of industries along outer belt lines on the edge of the 
city and a decline of manufacturing in the central area. 

In all large cities, with the advent of the motor 
truck and the specialized industrial district served 
by belt line railroads, there has been a tendency for 
industries to move away from the congested area to 
locations on the periphery. It is no longer necessary 
for industries to locate near the workingmen's 
homes, because such a large proportion of the em' 
ployees have easy access to quick transportation or 
come to work in their own automobiles from a wide 
radius. Thus the factories on the outer belt lines 
enjoy the advantages of the city as the center of a 
network of transportation and as a pool of labor. 
They avoid the heavier city taxes, the limited land 
area, and the disadvantages of multistoried indus' 
trial buildings which break the continuity of the 
industrial process on each floor level. Industrial 
managers also prefer to build factories on tracts of 
land on the periphery that are specifically designed 
for industrial use and that permit direct switch 
track connections on the most efficient angles, rather 
than to locate in the heart of cities where rigid street 
layouts and city traffic impose barriers to extension 
of railroad tracks. 

Hence, the danger of industries invading resi' 
dential areas, once the bane of the city planners, 
has, to a considerable extent, become a thing of the 
past. In an earlier period, industries invaded home 
areas of cities, as in Detroit and Brooklyn, creating 
a jumble of factories and dwellings. Today, how- 
ever, the preferred location for most industries is on 
the belt line on the periphery of the city. The va- 



cant land there is cheaper and consequently permits 
the erection of one-story buildings affording the 
greatest economy of factory operations. 

Even if not prevented by zoning, manufacturers do 
not often seek to establish large factories in well' 
developed home areas, because they would have to 
pay for residential structures merely for the purpose 
of wrecking them. Nevertheless, the protection by- 
zoning of home areas from invasion by industrial es' 
tablishments is a wise precaution because it bars 
small light manufacturing plants that might be 
started on a vacant lot in the midst of homes. 

Some of the changing trends in the pattern of 
commercial and industrial uses in American cities 
thus have been discussed briefly. The forces affect- 
ing the pattern of movement of residential rental 
areas, the main subject of this monograph, will be 
considered in the next chapter. Commercial and 
industrial uses have been discussed here chiefly 
because of their relation to residential areas. In 
the dynamic processes of city growth, expansion of 
commercial and industrial communities changes the 
character of the home areas. If land becomes 
suitable for a more intensive use, it may pay to 
tear down an existing structure still in good con- 
dition to make way for a taller building or a store 
yielding higher rent. Thus, single-family homes 
may be replaced, not only by stores or factories, 
but by multistory apartment buildings as well. It 
is seldom, however, that single-family homes are de- 
molished to make way for new single-family homes. 

Usually existing residential structures deteriorate 
and become obsolete with the passage of time. They 
are occupied by successive groups of people of lower 
incomes and lower social standards with the result 
that the quality of the neighborhood declines with 
that of the buildings. Hence, the new single-family 
structures of a city tend to be erected on the periph- 
ery. The manner in which the rental neighbor- 
hoods shift as a result of this new growth will now 
be considered. 



Ill 



Chapter IV 



The Pattern of Movement of Residential 
Rental Neighborhoods 



o, 



F THE various shifts that take place in the 
internal structure of a city as a result of population 
growth, the movement of the residential rental 
neighborhoods most vitally concerns the home 
owner or the investor in residential mortgages. 
This monograph is primarily a study of residential 
areas; the other types of land uses are considered 
because of their influence upon the home sections of 
the city. Hence the technique for determining the 
pattern of movement of residential rental areas has 
unusual importance, and the formulation of the 
principles defining the path of neighborhood growth 
is one of the focal points of this study. 

The manner in which the various residential 
neighborhoods are distributed in patterns according 
to rent was discussed in the closing chapter of part I. 
There the sector theory of residential rental areas 
was set forth. From the high rental areas that are 
frequently located on the periphery of one or more 
sectors of American cities, there is a downward 
gradation of rents until one reaches the low rent 
areas near the business center. The low rent areas 
are usually large and may extend from this center to 
the periphery on one side of the urban community. 
The high, low, and intermediate rental neighbor- 
hoods, however, did not always occupy these loca- 
tions on the urban site. Their present positions are 
the points reached in the course of a movement 
taking place over a period of time. It is not a move- 
ment of buildings but a shifting and a change in the 
character of occupants that produces neighborhood 
change. New patterns of rent areas are formed as 
the city grows and adds new structures by both 
vertical and lateral expansion. 

There is a need then for a technique for measuring 
the movement of the different types of rental neigh- 



borhoods so that the pattern of movement may be 
established. By tracing the course traversed by the 
residential communities of the various rental grades, 
principles may be formulated explaining the causes 
for neighborhood changes. 

To measure the movement of rental neighborhoods 
' over a period of time, a series of maps showing the 
average rent of dwelling units, block by block at 
different dates, would be desirable. Such maps are 
available for very recent years for those cities in 
which real property surveys have been conducted. 
Unfortunately, however, there is no series of real 
property surveys that will permit an exact com- 
parison of rental areas at different time intervals. 
But the question of the shape and direction of move- 
ment of different rental areas is of vital importance, 
and it is necessary to use the best evidence available, 
even if it is not so accurate as real property survey 
data. 

One method of showing the changes that have 
occurred is to compare a map showing the various 
rental areas today with a map showing the entire 
settled area at a previous period of time. When it is 
found, as in the case of Washington (fig. 39), that 
all the highest rental areas of 1934 lie beyond the 
limits of the settled area of 1887, it is evident that 
the best residential section has moved from some 
point within the area occupied by houses in 1887 to 
a new area that was entirely vacant at that time. 
Similar maps of five other cities in the Map Supple- 
ment 1 indicate a similar shift of the best residential 
neighborhoods. 

The use of dynamic factor maps, however, indi- 
cates the changes in the location of residential 
neighborhoods more exactly. These are constructed 

1 Figs. 25-29, see pp. 160 164. 



112 



FIGURE 39 

DISTRIBUTION OF RENTAL AREAS 1934 

COMPARED WITH SETTLED AREAS OF 1887 

WASHINGTON, D. C. 




LOW RENT RESIDENTIAL 

MEDIAN RENT RESIDENTIAL 

HIGH RENT RESIDENTIAL MM 

CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT HHl 

PUBLIC PROPERTY IN USE 

PRESENT CITY LIMITS 

SETTLED AREA OF 1887 INDICATED 
BY HEAVY CONTOUR LINE ^*-S 



SOURCE CIVIL WORKS ADMINISTRATION, REAL PROPERTY 

INVENTORY FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 1934 



113 



FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION 
DIVISION OF ECONOMICS ANO STATISTICS 



from evidence gleaned from old inhabitants. Those 
who have spent their lives in a city are often the 
only source of information on neighborhood changes. 
They have been eyewitnesses of the shifting char' 
acter of neighborhoods. If a number of these resi- 
dents are consulted independently and if they corrob- 
orate each other, much confidence may be placed 
in their evidence. To secure an accurate picture of 
the change, however, each of the residents should be 
asked to draw on a blank map of the city a line 
around the blocks in which the average rents of 
dwelling units were the highest in successive periods 
of time such as 1900 and 1915. Similarly, the same 
residents may be requested to draw, on another 
map, lines around the blocks in which the average 
rents of dwelling units were lowest at the same 
periods of time. Data for recent years are available, 
for a large number of cities, from real property sur- 
veys. In cities not surveyed, recent data may often 
be secured from local real-estate boards. Likewise 
the location of factory and commercial areas may be 
drawn for the same three periods of time. 

In securing this type of evidence, it is desirable to 
ask only for the rental extremes — the most fashion- 
able area on the one hand, the lowest rent area on 
the other. Persons depending upon memory might 
well fail to distinguish between intermediate grada- 
tions in rental areas that existed a number of years 
ago. It is desirable also to select time intervals a 
considerable number of years apart, so that there will 
be time for pronounced changes to have occurred 
that could easily be recalled. 

The evidence of such witnesses may be further 
checked by an examination of the areas outlined. 
Old fashionable areas usually leave their traces in the 
form of a few obsolete mansions that are still stand- 
ing. Frequently old photographic and historical 
records reveal the character of neighborhoods at an 
earlier period. 

The technique of dynamic maps — used for the 
purpose of showing the location of the best residential 
neighborhood at different periods of time — is illus- 
trated in the Map Supplement 2 by maps of the 
high, low, and intermediate rental neighborhoods 
of Bluefield, W. Va., Chicago, 111., Miami, Fla., 
Richmond, Va., and Washington, D. C. The 
application of this technique to the cities men- 

> Figs. 30-34, see pp. 165-169. 



tioned reveals a striking principle of neighborhood 
growth. 

The high rent neighborhoods of a city do not s1{ip 
about at random in the process of movement - they 
follow a definite path in one or more sectors of the city. 

Apparently there is a tendency for neighborhoods 
within a city to shift in accordance with what may 
be called the sector theory of neighborhood c hange. 
The understanding of the framework within which 
this principle operates will be facilitated by consid- 
ering the entire city as a circle and various neighbor- 
hoods as falling into sectors radiating out from the 
center of that circle. No city conforms exactly to 
this ideal pattern, of course, but the general figure 
is useful inasmuch as in our American cities the 
different types of residential areas tend to grow out- 
ward along rather distinct radii, and new growth on 
the arc of a given sector tends to take on the 
character of the initial growth in that sector. 

Thus if one sector of a city first develops as a low 
rent residential area, it will tend to retain that char- 
acter for long distances as the sector is extended 
through process of the city's growth. On the other 
hand, if a high rent area becomes established in 
another sector of the city, it will tend to grow or 
expand within that sector, and new high grade areas 
will tend to establish themselves in the sector's out- 
ward extension. This tendency is portrayed in 
figure 40 by the shifts in the location of the fashion- 
able residential areas in six American cities between 
1900 and 1936. Generally speaking, different sectors 
of a city present different characters according to 
the original types of the neighborhoods within 
them. 

In considering the growth of a city, the movement 
of the high rent area is in a certain sense the most 
important because it tends to pull the growth of the 
entire city in the same direction. The homes of the 
leaders of society are located at some point in the 
high rent area. This location is the point of highest 
rents or the high rent pole. Residential rents 
grade downward from this pole as lesser income 
groups seek to get as close to it as possible. This 
high rent pole tends to move outward from the 
center of the city along a certain avenue or lateral 
line. The new houses constructed for the occu- 
pancy of the higher rental groups are situated on the 
outward edges of the high rent area. As these 



114 



FIGURE 40 



SHIFTS IN LOCATION OF FASHIONABLE RESIDENTIAL AREAS 

IN SIX AMERICAN CITIES 
1900 - 1936 

FASHIONABLE RESIDENTIAL AREAS INDICATED BY SOLID BLACK 



1900 



1915 



1936 



BOSTON MASSACHUSETTS 





SEATTLE WASHINGTON 




MINNEAPOLIS MINNESOTA 




SAN FRANCISCO CALIFORNIA 




CHARLESTON W.VIRGINIA 




RICHMOND VIRGINIA 















FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION 
DIVISION OF ECONOMICS a STATISTICS 



115 



areas grow outward, the lower and intermediate 
rental groups filter into the homes given up by the 
higher income groups. In New York City the 
movement was up Fifth Avenue, starting at 
Washington Square and preceding finally to Ninety- 
sixth Street in the course of a century. In Chicago, 
there were three high rental areas, moving south- 
ward along Michigan and Wabash Avenues, west- 
ward in the band between Jackson and Washington 
Streets, and northward along La Salle and Dearborn 
Streets to the Lake Shore Drive. 

Sometimes the high rent pole jumps to new areas 
on the periphery of the city, as in the case of the 
development of Shaker Heights in Cleveland, Ohio, 
and Coral Gables in Miami, Fla., but usually these 
new areas are in the line of growth of the high 
rent areas. In Charleston, W. Va., the high grade 
neighborhood moved from the center of the city 
along Kanawha Street until it reached the river, 
and then the new high grade area jumped to new 
locations in the hills in the south and north. In 
Seattle, Wash., the high grade neighborhood started 
near the center of the city and moved northeast in 
one sector of the city- the location along the lake on 
the periphery. At the same time the high grade 
development sprang up to the northwest, jumping 
intervening low grade areas. 

In Minneapolis, Minn., there was a movement of 
the high grade neighborhood to the southwest, 
starting at the center of the city and repeating the 
same type of growth until it reached the outer 
edge of the city in a lake region. In Richmond, 
Va., the sector of the city containing Monument 
Avenue first developed as a high grade area. The 
movement of the high grade neighborhood continued 
out along the line of Monument Avenue until it 
reached the city limits and then it expanded fan 
shape in a sector to the north and west. At the 
same time a high grade devel6pment started to the 
north in a sector which was bisected by Chamber- 
lay ne Street. 

In Detroit, Mich., the growth of the high grade 
neighborhood proceeded eastward along Jefferson 
Avenue out to Grosse Pointe along Lake St. Clair. 
There was another band of high grade development 
west of the axis of Woodward Avenue. In Miami, 
Fla., bands of high grade development followed 
Biscayne Bay to the north and south and also to 
Miami Beach. 



As a result of the outward movement of the high 
rent neighborhoods in American cities, present 
fashionable areas are mostly located beyond the 
earlier settled areas of American cities. Thus, 
figure 39 shows that in Washington, D. C, practical- 
ly all of the high rent area of today is located in a 
section that lies beyond the area occupied by 
houses in 1887- Similarly, in the 14 other illustrative 
cities referred to in this chapter, most of the high 
rent areas of today are located beyond the areas 
occupied by houses at a relatively recent period of 
time. 

High rent or high grade residential neighborhoods 
must almost necessarily move outward toward the 
periphery of the city. The wealthy seldom reverse 
their steps and move backward into the obsolete 
houses which they are giving up. On each side of 
them is usually an intermediate rental area, so they 
cannot move sideways. As they represent the high- 
est income group, there are no houses above them 
abandoned by another group. They must build new 
houses on vacant land. Usually this vacant land lies 
available just ahead of the line of march of the area 
because, anticipating the trend of fashionable 
growth, land promoters have either restricted it to 
high grade use or speculators have placed a value on 
the land that is too high for the low rent or inter- 
mediate rental group. Hence the natural trend of 
the high rent area is outward, toward the periphery 
of the city in the very sector in which the high rent 
area started. The exception to this outward move- 
ment is the development of de luxe apartment areas 
in old residential areas. This will be treated more 
fully on a following page. 

What determines the point of origin of the highest 
rental areas of the city and the direction and pattern 
of their future growth? The answer to this ques- 
tion is of vital importance to all students of urban 
growth, for the high rent sector is the pole or center 
of attraction that pulls the other residential areas 
with it. 

In all of the cities studied, the high grade resi- 
dential area had its point of origin near the retail 
and office center. This is where the higher income 
groups work, and is the point that is the farthest 
removed from the side of the city that has indus- 
tries or warehouses. In each city, the direction and 
pattern of its future growth then tends to be gov- 



116 



erned by some combination of the following con- 
siderations: 

(1) High grade residential growth tends to proceed 
from the given point of origin, along established lines 
of travel or toward another existing nucleus of build- 
ings or trading centers. — This principle is illustrated 
by the movement of the high grade residential neigh- 
borhood of Chicago along the main axes of the roads 
like Cottage Grove Avenue, leading south around 
the bend of Lake Michigan to the east, of main roads 
like Madison Street leading westward, and of roads 
following the lake northward to Milwaukee. In 
Detroit, Mich., there was a trend of fashionable 
growth along the radial line of Woodward Avenue, 
the main thoroughfare to Flint and Pontiac, begin- 
ning within the Grand Boulevard Circuit and later 
extending to Highland Park, Palmer Woods, Fern- 
dale, Royal Oak, and Birmingham. 

(2) The zone of high rent areas tends to progress 
toward high ground which is free from the ris\ of floods 
and to spread along lake, bay, river, and ocean fronts, 
where such water fronts are not used for industry. — 
The movement of high grade residential neighbor- 
hoods away from river bottoms to higher ground or 
to wooded hills is illustrated by numerous examples. 
In San Francisco, Calif., the wealthy moved from 
the lowland along the bay to Knob Hill which was 
less subject to fogs and smoke. In Washington, 
D. C, the high grade neighborhoods moved from 
the mud flats along the Potomac in the southeast 
quadrant and from the lowland in the southwest 
quadrant, to the higher land in the northwest sec- 
tion. In Springfield, Mass., the best areas moved 
from the lowland along the Connecticut River to 
rising land and to Longmeadow. In Kansas City, 
Mo., St. Louis, Mo., and Cincinnati, Ohio, there 
has been a movement of settlement away from the 
river bottoms to the higher land. 

In cities located on relatively flat land near rivers, 
bays, lakes, or oceans, the high grade residential 
neighborhood tends to expand in long lines along 
the water front that is not used for industrial pur- 
poses. Thus in Chicago, the lake front on the north 
side is the front yard of the city and is preempted 
for high grade residential use for a distance of nearly 
30 miles north of the business center. In New 
York City, a high grade residential area grew 
northward along the Hudson River on Riverside 
Drive from 72d Street to Riverdale in the West 



Bronx. In Miami, Fla., the high rent areas extend 
along Biscayne Bay to the north and southeast and 
along the ocean front on Miami Beach. In Detroit, 
Mich., a high grade development extends along 
Lake St. Clair at Grosse Pointe. On the New 
Jersey coast, there is a long string of resorts along 
the ocean front with the highest paid residential 
use confined to the strip along the beach. In 
Charleston, W. Va., one high grade residential area 
extends along the high bank of the Kanawha River. 
Thus, where such lakes, rivers, bays, or ocean 
fronts exist and offer the attractions of bathing, 
yachting, cool breezes in summer, and a wide ex- 
panse of water with its uninterrupted view, rent 
areas tend to follow the contour of the water front 
in long, narrow lines of growth. 

(3) High rent residential districts tend to grow 
toward the section of the city which has free, open 
country beyond the edges and away from "dead end" 
sections which are limited by natural or artificial 
barriers to expansion. — The lure of open fields, 
golf courses, country clubs, and country estates acts 
as a magnet to pull high grade residential areas to 
sections that have free, open country beyond their 
borders and away from areas that run into "dead 
ends." Thus the highgrade neighborhood of Wash' 
ington, D. C, grows northwest toward expanding 
open country and estates. Thus, the expansion of 
high grade neighborhoods to the north of Balti- 
more, Md., to the south of Kansas City, Mo., and 
to the north of New York City in Westchester 
County is into areas with a wide expanse of country 
beyond them. 

(4) The higher priced residential neighborhood tends 
to grow toward the homes of the leaders of the com- 
munity. — In Washington, D. C, the White House; 
in New York, the homes of the Astors and the Van- 
derbilts were the magnets that pulled the members 
of society in their direction. One fashionable home, 
an outpost on the prairie, standing near Sixteenth 
Street and Prairie Avenue in Chicago in 1836, gave 
prestige to the section and caused other leaders of 
fashion to locate near the same spot. 3 

(5) Trends of movement of office buildings, ban\s, 
and stores, pull the higher priced residential neigh- 
borhoods in the same general direction. — The stores, 

3 See Lynd, Robert S., and Helen M., Middletown in Transition (New York 
Harcourt, Brace & Co., 1937), pp. 81-82, for an interesting example of how the 
northwest section of Middletown became the outstanding residential section 
as a result of the movement of the most prominent family to that section. 



117 



offices, and banks in the central business district 
usually move in the direction of the high rent 
area, but follow rather than lead the movement of 
the high rent neighborhood. Sometimes, however, 
when an office building center becomes established 
at a certain point, it facilitates the growth of a 
high rent area in sections that are conveniently 
accessible to it. Thus the office building center in 
the Grand Central District in New York City has 
aided the growth of the de luxe apartment area in 
Park Avenue and also the exclusive suburban towns 
in Westchester that are served by fast express 
trains entering the Grand Central Station. The 
establishment of an office building center at Grand 
Boulevard and Woodward Avenue in Detroit, 
Mich., aided the growth of the high grade area to 
the north and west of it. In Washington, D. C, 
the northwestward trend of the office buildings, 
while the result of the pull of the high grade areas 
to the northwest, also favored the further growth 
of the northwest area because it made those areas 
more accessible to offices. Similarly, the trend of 
office buildings on North Michigan Avenue in 
Chicago favored the northward growth of the de 
luxe apartment area. 

(6) High grade residential areas tend to develop 
along the fastest existing transportation lines. — The 
high grade residential areas m Chicago grew along 
the main plank road, horse car, cable car, and sub- 
urban railroad routes. In New York City, the ele- 
vated lines and subways paralleled Fifth Avenue. 
Fast commuters' trains connect New York City with 
the high grade suburban homes in Montclair, the 
Oranges, and Maplewood in New Jersey, in Scars- 
dale, Pelham, and Bronxville in Westchester, and in 
Forest Hills, Kew Gardens, Flushing, and Hemp- 
stead in Long Island. In Detroit, Mich., the high 
grade areas are located close to main arteries leading 
directly to the center of the city — Jefferson, Wood- 
ward, and Grand River Avenues. In Washington, 
D. C, the best areas are on the main transportation 
arteries — Connecticut Avenue, Massachusetts Ave- 
nue, and Sixteenth Street leading directly to the 
White House. 

(7) The growth of high rent neighborhoods continues 
in the same direction for a long period of time. — In 
New York City, the march of the fashionable areas 
continued up Fifth Avenue from Washington Square 
to Central Park for over a century. The high grade 



neighborhoods in Chicago moved south, west, and 
north from their starting points in or near the pres- 
ent "Loop" to present locations 7 to 20 miles 
distant in the course of a century. In the cen- 
tury after the Revolutionary War, the high grade 
area of Washington, D. C, moved from the Capitol 
to the Naval Observatory. The high rent areas of 
Detroit, Mich., moved from points near the present 
business center to Grosse Pointe, Palmer Woods, 
and Birmingham, 6 to 10 miles away. 

In Miami, Fla., Minneapolis, Minn., Seattle, 
Wash., Charleston, W. Va., Salt Lake City, Utah., 
and many other cities, this same continuous outward 
movement of high rent areas has been maintained for 
long periods of time. Except under the unusual 
conditions now to be described, there have been no 
reversals of this long continued trend. 

(8) De luxe high rent apartment areas tend to be 
established near the business center in old residential 
areas. — One apparent exception to the rule that 
high rent neighborhoods do not reverse their trend 
of growth is found in the case of de luxe apartment 
areas like Streeterville in Chicago and Park Avenue 
in New York City. This exception is a very special 
case, however, and applies only to intensive high 
grade apartment developments in a few metropolitan 
centers. When the high rent single-family home 
areas have moved far out on the periphery of the 
city, some wealthy families desire to live in a colony 
of luxurious apartments close to the business center. 
Because of both the intensive use of the land by use 
of multiple family structures and the high rents 
charged it pays to wreck existing improvements. 

Such apartments can rise even in the midst of a 
poor area because the tall building itself, rising from 
humble surroundings like a feudal castle above the 
mud huts of the villeins, is a barrier against intru- 
sion. Thus, when the railroad tracks were depressed 
under Park Avenue in New York City and the rail- 
roads were electrified, that street, originally lined 
with shanties, became the fashionable apartment 
avenue of New York City. In Chicago, the wall of 
apartments on the sands where Captain Streeter 
once had his shack is now occupied by the most ex- 
clusive social set. In both cases, there was a ren- 
aissance of an old neighborhood. It is only where 
intensive apartment uses occupy the land that such 
an apparent reversal of trend occurs. 



118 



(9) Real estate promoters may bend the direction of 
high grade residential growth. — While it is almost 
impossible for real estate developers to reverse the 
natural trend of growth of high grade neighbor' 
hoods, even by the expenditure of large sums of 
money and great promotional effort, it is possible 
for them to accelerate a natural trend or to bend a 
natural trend of growth. 

Miami Beach, directly on the Gulf Stream in 
Florida, was favored by nature as the site for high 
grade resort homes. When it was a mangrove 
swamp, separated from the mainland by Biscayne 
Bay, it was almost inaccessible. Carl Fisher, by 
building a million dollar causeway and by pumping 
up 2,800 acres of land out of the bay and erecting 
thereon golf courses and hotels, made it possible for 
these natural advantages of Miami Beach to be 
utilized. Similarly, George Merrick acquired a 
great tract of land at Coral Gables, Fla., and, by 
spending millions of dollars in laying out streets, in 
planting flowering trees, and in establishing restric- 
tions, gave the area a high grade character which it 
did not otherwise possess. So, likewise, did the 
developers of Roland Park in Baltimore, Shaker 
Heights near Cleveland, and the Country Club Dis- 
trict of Kansas City take large areas in the line of 
growth and establish high grade communities by 
means of building restrictions, architectural control, 
community planning, and other barriers against 
invasion. 

In all these cases, the high rent area was in the 
general path of growth ; but which area of the many 
in the favored area became the fashionable center de- 
pended upon the promotional skill and the money 
expended by individual promoters. 

As a result of some or all of these forces, high rent 
neighborhoods thus become established in one sec- 
tor of the city, and they tend to move out in that 
sector to the periphery of the city. Even if the 
sector in which the high rent growth begins does 
not possess all of the advantages, it is difficult for 
the high rent neighborhood to change its direction 
suddenly or to move to a new quarter of the city. 
For as the high rent neighborhood grows and ex- 
pands, the low and intermediate areas are likewise 
growing and expanding, and they are taking up and 
utilizing land alongside the high rent area as well as 
m other sectors of the city. When these other 
areas have acquired a low rent character, it is very 



difficult to change that character except for intensive 
apartment use. Hence, while in the beginning of 
the growth of the city, high rent neighborhoods may 
have a considerable choice of direction in which to 
move, that range of choice is narrowed as the city 
grows and begins to be filled up on one or more sides 
by low rent structures. 

It is possible for high rent neighborhoods to take 
over sections which are marred by a few shacks. 
These are swept aside or submerged by the tide of 
growth. Negro houses have even been bought up 
and moved away in some southern cities to make way 
for a high grade development. This possibility 
exists where the houses are flimsy or scattered, 
where the land is cheap, where it is held by one 
owner, or where the residents are under the 
domination of others. It is extremely difficult 
otherwise. The cost of acquiring and tearing 
down substantial buildings and the practical im- 
possibility of acquiring large areas from scattered 
owners, usually prevent high grade areas from taking 
over land once it has been fairly well occupied by 
middle or low grade residential uses. 

Now that the radius of the settled area of cities 
has been greatly extended by the automobile, how- 
ever, there is little difficulty in securing land for 
the expansion of high rent areas; for the high rent 
sector of the city expands with an ever widening 
arc as one proceeds from the business center. 

The next vital question to be considered is how 
the various types of high rent areas are affected by 
the process of dynamic growth of the city and how 
the various types are related to each other in 
historical sequence. 

The first type of high rent development was the 
axial type with high grade homes in a long avenue 
or avenues leading directly to the business center. 
The avenue was a social bourse, communication 
being maintained by a stream of fashionable car- 
riages, the occupants of which nodded to their 
acquaintances in other passing carriages or to 
other friends on the porches of the fine residences 
along the way. Such avenues were lined with 
beautiful shade trees and led to a park or parks 
through a series of connecting boulevards. Ex- 
amples of this type of development, in the decades 
from 1870 to 1900, are Prairie and South Michigan 
Avenues, Washington and Jackson Streets and 
the Lake Shore Drive in Chicago, Fifth Avenue, in 



119 



New York City, Monument Avenue in Richmond, 
Va., and Summit Street in St. Paul, Minn. The 
fashionable area in this type of development 
expanded in a long string in a radial line from the 
business center. There was usually an abrupt 
transition within a short distance on either side of 
the high grade street. 

The axial type of high rent area rapidly became 
obsolete with the growth of the automobile. When 
the avenues became automobile speedways, danger- 
ous to children, noisy, and filled with gasoline 
fumes, they ceased to be attractive as home sites 
for the well-to-do. No longer restricted to the 
upper classes, who alone could maintain prancing 
steeds and glittering broughams, but filled with 
hoi polloi jostling the limousines with their flivvers, 
the old avenues lost social caste. The rich then 
desired seclusion — away from the "madding crowd 11 
whizzing by and honking their horns. Mansions 
were then built in wooded areas, screened by trees. 
The very height of privacy is now attained by 
some millionaires whose homes are so protected 
from the public view by trees that they can be seen 
from outside only from an airplane. 

The well-to-do who occupy most of the houses in 
the high rent brackets have done likewise in segre- 
gated garden communities. The new type of high 
grade area was thus not in the form of a long axial 
line but in the form of a rectangular area, turning 
its back on the outside world, with winding streets, 
woods, and its own community centers. Such new 
square or rectangular areas are usually located along 
the line of the old axial high grade areas. The once 
proud mansions still serve as a favorable approach 
to the new secluded spots. As some of the old axial 
type high rent areas still maintain a waning prestige 
and may still be classed as high rent areas, the new 
high rent area takes a fan-shaped or funnel form 
expanding from a central stem as it reaches the 
periphery of the city. 

The old stringlike development of high rent areas 
still asserts itself, however, in the cases of expansion 
of high rent areas along water fronts like Lake 
Michigan, Miami Beach, and the New Jersey coast. 
The automobile, however, has made accessible hilly 
and wooded tracts on which houses are built on the 
crest of hills along winding roads. 

The fashionable suburban town, which had its 
origin even before the Civil War, has remained a 



continuous type of high grade area. Old fashionable 
towns like Evanston, Oak Park, and Lake Forest 
near Chicago, have maintained their original charac- 
ter and expanded their growth. Other new high 
grade suburban towns have been established. The 
de luxe apartment area has been a comparatively 
recent development, coming after 1900, when the 
wealthy ceased to desire to maintain elaborate town 
houses and when the high grade single-family home 
areas began to be located far from the business center. 
A group of wealthy people, desiring to live near the 
business center and to avoid the expense and trouble 
of maintaining a retinue of servants, sought the 
convenience of tall elevator apartments. 

The high grade areas thus tend to preempt the 
most desirable residential land by supporting the 
highest values. Intermediate rental groups tend to 
occupy the sectors in each city that are adjacent to 
the high rent area. Those in the intermediate rental 
group have incomes sufficient to pay for new houses 
with modern sanitary facilities. Hence, the new 
growth of these middle-class areas takes place on the 
periphery of the city near high grade areas or some- 
times at points beyond the edge of older middle- 
class areas. 

Occupants of houses in the low rent categories 
tend to move out in bands from the center of the 
city mainly by filtering up into houses left behind 
by the high income groups, or by erecting shacks on 
the periphery of the city. They live in either 
second-hand houses in which the percentage needing 
major repairs is relatively high or in newly con- 
structed shacks on the periphery of the city. These 
shacks frequently lack modern plumbing facilities 
and are on unpaved streets. The shack fringe of 
the city is usually in the extension of a low rent 
section. 

Within the low rent area itself there are move- 
ments of racial and national groups. Until only 
comparatively recently, the immigrants poured from 
Europe into the oldest and cheapest quarters on the 
lower East Side of New York and on the West Side 
of Chicago. The earlier immigrants moved out 
toward the periphery of the city. These foreign 
groups moved in bands or straight lines out from the 
railroad stations near the central business district. 
The Italian colony of Chicago moved westward 
along the area in the point between Harrison Street 
and Roosevelt Road and northwestward along 



120 



Grand Avenue. The Poles proceeded northwest 
along Milwaukee Avenue and expanded southwest 
along the stockyards. The Russian Jews moved 
west between Roosevelt Road and Sixteenth Street. 
The Chechoslovakians shifted southwest from Eight' 
eenth and Loomis Streets to Twenty-second and 
thence westward to Cicero. With the decline of 
immigration after the World War, new immigrants 
ceased to fill the old houses in the downtown area 
and this outward progression of foreign groups 
slackened. Many of the tenements m the lower 
east side were boarded up, and some of the oldest 
quarters near the central business district of Chicago 
were demolished. 

During the World War and after, however, there 
was a great influx of Negroes into the northern cities 
to take the place of European immigration. The 
Negro neighborhood in Harlem, New York, ex- 
panded in concentric circles. In Chicago, the 
Negroes burst the bounds of their old area along 
State Street and the Rock Island tracks,Twenty- 
second and Thirty-ninth Street and spread east- 
ward to Cottage Grove Avenue and south to Sixty- 
seventh Street. In this movement in Chicago, they 
spread into an area formerly occupied by middle 
class and some high income families. The area, how- 
ever, was becoming obsolete and did not offer 
vigorous resistance to the incoming of other racial 
groups. 

Thus, in the framework of the city there is a con- 
stant dynamic shifting of rental areas. There is a 
constant outward movement of neighborhoods be- 
cause as neighborhoods become older they tend to be 
less desirable. 

Forces constantly and steadily at work are causing 
a deterioration in existing neighborhoods. A neigh- 
borhood composed of new houses in the latest 
modern style, all owned by young married couples 
with children, is at its apex. At this period of its 
vigorous youth, the neighborhood has the vitality to 
fight off the disease of blight. The owners will 
strenuously resist the encroachment of inharmonious 
forces because of their pride in their homes and their 
desire to maintain a favorable environment for their 
children. The houses, being in the newest and most 
popular style, do not suffer from the competition of 
any superior house in the same price range, and they 
are marketable at approximately their reproduction 
cost under normal conditions. 



Both the buildings and the people are always grow- 
ing older. Physical depreciation of structures and 
the aging of families constantly are lessening the 
vital powers of the neighborhood. Children grow 
up and move away. Houses with increasing age are 
faced with higher repair bills. This steady process 
of deterioration is hastened by obsolescence; a new 
and more modern type of structure relegates these 
structures to the second rank. The older residents 
do not fight so strenuously to keep out inharmonious 
forces. A lower income class succeeds the original 
occupants. Owner occupancy declines as the first 
owners sell out or move away or lose their homes by 
foreclosure. There is often a sudden decline in value 
due to a sharp transition in the character of the 
neighborhood or to a period of depression in the real 
estate cycle. 

These internal changes due to depreciation and 
obsolescence in themselves cause shifts in the loca- 
tions of neighborhoods. When, in addition, there 
is poured into the center of the urban organism a 
stream of immigrants or members of other racial 
groups, these forces also cause dislocations in the 
existing neighborhood pattern. 

The effects of these changes vary according to the 
type of neighborhood and can best be described by 
discussing each one in turn. The highest grade 
neighborhood, occupied by the mansions of the rich, 
is subject to an extraordinary rate of obsolescence. 
The large scale house, modeled after a feudal castle 
or a palace, has lost favor even with the rich. When 
the wealthy residents seek new locations, there is 
no class of a slightly lower income which will buy 
the huge structures because no one but wealthy 
persons can afford to furnish and maintain them. 
There is no class filtering up to occupy them for 
single-family use. Consequently, they can only be 
converted into boarding houses, offices, clubs, or 
light industrial plants, for which they were not 
designed. Their attraction of these types of uses 
causes a deterioration of the neighborhood and a 
further decline in value. These mansions frequently 
become white elephants like those on Arden Park 
and East Boston Boulevard in Detroit, Mich. 

On the other hand, houses in intermediate rental 
neighborhoods designed for small families can be 
handed down to a slightly lower income group as 
they lose some of their original desirability because of 



121 



age and obsolescence. There is a loss of value when 
a transition to a lower income group occurs, but the 
house is still used for the essential purpose for which 
it was designed; and the loss of value is not so great. 
There is always a class filtration to occupy the houses 
in the intermediate rental neighborhoods. Hence, a 
certain stability of value is assured. 

Since the buildings in low rent areas are occupied 
by the poorest unskilled or casual workers, collection 
losses and vacancy ratios are highest. The worst 
buildings are condemned or removed by demolition 
to save taxes. Formerly these worst quarters in the 
old law tenements of New York or the West Side of 
Chicago were occupied by newly arrived immigrants. 
With the decline of immigration, this submarginal 



fringe of housing is being wrecked or boarded up as 
the residents filter up to better houses. 

Thus, intermediate rental neighborhoods tend to 
preserve their stability better than either the highest 
or lowest rental areas. 

The erection of new dwellings on the periphery of 
a city, made accessible by new circulatory systems, 
sets in motion forces tending to draw population 
from the older houses and to cause all groups to move 
up a step leaving the oldest and cheapest houses to be 
occupied by the poorest families or to be vacated. 
The constant competition of new areas is itself a 
cause of neighborhood shifts. Every building boom, 
with its new crop of structures equipped with the 
latest modern devices, pushes all existing structures 
a notch down in the scale of desirability. 



122 



APPENDIX 



163253—39- 



123 



I. Data Used in the Analysis of City Structure 



T, 



HE body of this monograph suggested a series 
ot techniques for use in segregating the several 
types of residential neighborhoods in a city. 
Until comparatively recent years, practically no 
data were available which could be used to differ- 
entiate the conglomerate urban mass into its 
various segments. The increasing complexity of 
housing and real-estate problems, however, has 
made the need for fundamental statistics a prime 
necessity. Consequently, numerous attempts to 
gather data relative to urban housing problems 
have been made by various private and govern- 
mental authorities. As an aid in the use of the 
techniques suggested in this volume, therefore, we 
will outline in summary fashion the historical 
record of those governmental projects within the 
past several years which are related to the physical 
condition of residential units in American cities. 1 

f. In January 1934 a Federal Real Property 
Inventory of 64 urban centers was made as a Civil 
Works Administration project. This was the first 
survey collecting detailed information on the hous- 
ing situation in the United States. The Bureau of 
Foreign and Domestic Commerce of the Depart- 
ment of Commerce supervised the survey and 
received the cooperation of the Bureau of the 
Census. A number of government agencies coop- 
erated in formulating the detailed plans; valuable 
advice and assistance was also secured from nu- 
merous nongovernmental agencies and private indi- 
viduals. The 64 cities varied considerably in size, 
location, age, and rate of growth, and were selected 
as representative of different types of economic 
development. Each State was represented by at 
least one city and only Texas was represented by 
more than two. Block summaries and block data 



i For mere detailed description than can ! e given here, and for an important 
collection of usable data, see the recent publication by the Works Progress 
Administration, Urban Housing, A Summary <>}' Real Property Inventories 
Washington, D. C, 193 



maps have been prepared for each of these cities 
by the Federal Housing Administration. 

2. In mid 1934 a number of other cities requested 
assistance from the Civil Works Administration 
in conducting similar surveys. These were con- 
ducted as local Civil Works Administration proj- 
ects using the schedule developed by the Depart- 
ment of Commerce. That Department assisted 
some of the cities in setting up an organization for 
the surveys but they were made without super- 
vision from Washington. Since the surveys arose 
from local interest, they emphasized problems of 
local concern. No summaries by blocks were pre- 
pared. 

3. In late 1934 additional real-property surveys 
were made in Muncie, Ind., and in 13 places in 
Pennsylvania, using an enumeration schedule as 
revised by the Emergency Relief Administration. 
These were the first revisions made in the survey 
technique and corrected certain weaknesses which 
had appeared in the earlier surveys. Strict central 
supervision was received for the projects in each 
of these cities. In most of the cases, no summaries 
by blocks were prepared for the cities in this group. 

4. In the winter of 1934-35, the survey technique 
was revised for the second time at the instigation of 
the Division of Economics and Statistics of the Fed- 
eral Housing Administration. The latter agency, 
together with the Central Statistical Board, the 
Federal Emergency Relief Administration, the Fed- 
eral Home Loan Bank Board, and the Housing Divi- 
sion of the Public Works Administration thoroughly 
reviewed the technique and scope of the real prop- 
erty surveys which had been made. This group 
developed a more comprehensive procedure through 
the revision of schedules, scope of the survey, in- 
structions for enumerators, plan of organization, and 
standardized tabulations. The three most signifi- 
cant changes in the procedure were the addition of a 



124 



land use survey, summarization of all data by city 
blocks, and revisions in the general tables. The basic 
housing data are comparable for the most part with 
those secured in earlier surveys. 

As a test of the revised survey procedure, the 
Federal Housing Administration selected 10 cities in 
West Virginia, Meadville, Pa., and Cheyenne, Wyo., 
for surveys to be made under their supervision. 
The projects were operated with personnel furn- 
ished by the Federal Emergency Relief Administra- 
tion. The surveys made in these 12 urban places 
thoroughly tested the modified procedure. 

Before the testing of the modified technique had 
been completed, surveys in 12 places in Indiana and 
1 m Spartanburg, S. C. were started using the 
schedules developed in the first revision. Simple 
summaries by blocks were prepared and retained 
locally. The tabulations, however, are similar to 
those utilized in the second and final revision. 

5. The Standard Technique thus developed was 
published on July 19, 1935, and contained (a) the sur- 
vey procedure, (b) the tabulation instructions and, 
(c) a set of standard block tabulation and general sur' 
vey tables. 2 All surveys have since followed the 
procedure prescribed in the Standard Technique. 
In all, surveys have been completed in 204 urban 
places, mostly from 1934 through 1936. In recent 
months, however, additional surveys in more than 
half a hundred other cities have been approved by the 
Works Progress Administration, and at least 18 
are under way at the time of writing. 

2 Coordinating Committee of the C. S. B. and the W. P. A.; and the Division 
of Economics and Statistics, Federal Housing Administration, Technique for a 
Real Property Survey (Washington, D. C, 1935). 



Accuracy of data. — The experience of the Census 
Bureau in its quests for census information indicates 
that absolute accuracy cannot be obtained in con- 
ducting house-to-house surveys. The judgment of 
the enumerator in border-line cases and incorrect 
information supplied by respondents result in some 
errors. In many of the early local real property 
inventories, inadequate training of workers and 
inexperienced local supervisors probably lead to addi- 
tional inaccuracies. However, the use of the Stand- 
ard Technique and supervision from Washington, 
including provision for proper training of personnel, 
spot checking of enumeration, careful reviewing of 
the schedules, and better organization of tabulation 
resulted in improved quality of results on the later 
surveys. It is believed that the quality is above the 
average for surveys of this type. 

Because the cities were surveyed at different times 
since early 1934, there are slight variations in defini- 
tion and in the completeness of the enumeration for 
different cities. The changes in economic conditions 
during this period, however, probably affect the 
complete comparability between cities more materi- 
ally for some items than the above variations. 

Definitions of data. — The illustrative form on the 
following page will give the reader a clearer indica- 
tion of the type of data now gathered in real property 
surveys by use of the Standard Technique. All sur- 
veys made since the Standard Technique was devel- 
oped have used this form and it is in current use. 
It differs slightly but not materially from the form 
used in the early surveys made in 1934. Definitions 
of the various items are also listed below. 



125 



FIGURE 41 



CO 

>- 

LU 

> 
DC 
D 
CO 

> 

tr- 
CC 
Ul 
Q_ 
O 
DC 

a. 
< 

UJ 

DC 

UJ 
D 
O 

z 
I 
o 

UJ 

I- 

Q 

DC 
< 
Q 
Z 
< 
h 
co 

DC 
O 

Ll 

UJ 

_l 
D 
D 
U) 

I 

o 

CO 

Z 

o 

h 
< 

DC 
Ul 



UJ 



S 



I 5 



iDDDD 



a. m * 

W O IH 



H N tO <f 



3 I 



S3 - 



3 
■g . 

frn P HIO O IO O W 
H H N (O 



a u 



DDD 



r-l M » 



nnn 



annn 

o 



-p £ Q) 

£ z o 



DDDD DDD 



"4 r-j rH 






DDDD 



s .' a .' 

at vi o a 

j2 O a! O 






I o 8 



snDDDnnna 
I snnnnnnan 






■a s 



,H M tO ** in to c- ao 



DDDDD 



-ri U U M 

« 13 -3 3 

-O p« Q« Ih 

25 a o * o 

o o « (x <~ 



rH OJ K) ^« 



D 



ass 

g=3 



DDDDD 



m w to 



i~* CxJ CO 



DD 



DD 



S .-« m m 



„ d □ □ n n □ 

h a, u «, o a BO 0)fc.^ij4 



r4 O 
01 +> 



IS Is is gl I 

W «0 f-i 6-" H 

^5 4 u? 






at & 



Cl a 41 CI O 

*h ai 4i fl 4> fl an 



DD 



126 



Structures 



Dwelling Units 



Any building containing at least one dwelling unit is classi- 
fied as a residenti.il structure. Hotels, clubs, rooming houses, 
and institutions are excluded in all surveys. 

A. Type of structure. — 1. Single-family, detached. — A single 
structure with open space on all four sides intended for occu- 
pancy by one family. 

2. Single family, attached. —A structure built directly against 
an adjoining structure (whether residential or nonresidential) 
without open space between and containing one dwelling unit 
extending from basement to roof. 

3. Two-family, side by side. — A structure containing two 
dwelling units, each of which extends from basement to roof. 
It may or may not have two separate entrances. 

4. Two-family, twodec\er. — A structure containing two 
dwelling units, where one unit occupies the first floor and the 
other unit occupies the second floor. The structure may be free 
standing or attached. This term does not apply to cases where 
one family lives in a basement and another lives on the ground 
floor. 

5. Three-family, three-dec\er. — A structure containing three 
dwelling units, each of which occupies a complete floor. The 
structure may be either free standing or attached. 

6. Four-family, double two-decker. — A special type of struc- 
ture containing four dwelling units with two units on the first 
floor, each of which occupy half of the floor, and two units on 
the second floor, each of which occupy half of that floor. The 
structure may be either free standing or attached. 

7- Apartments. — Any structure primarily residential in 
character which contains five or more dwelling units. It may 
contain business units providing the residential portion pre- 
dominates. 

8. Business with dwelling units. — Any structure primarily 
business in character, but which also contains dwelling units. 
The structure may have any number of dwelling units if busi- 
ness uses are more important. 

9. Other nonconverted structures. — Nonconverted structures 
with four or less dwelling units which cannot be classified in 
preceding categories, including one-family dwellings which are 
not structures, such as tents or houseboats, and nonconverted 
structures with two to four dwelling units when these are not 
laid out as above. 

10. Partially converted. — A structure is partially converted 
when it is arranged to provide a different number of dwelling 
units, or insertion of one or more business units, than intended 
in its original construction if the alterations are so slight the 
structure could be changed back to its original type without 
substantial expenditure of time or money. "Partially con- 
verted" means no important structural change has been made. 

11. Completely converted. — A structure is completely con- 
verted when it is arranged to provide a different number of 
dwelling units, or insertion of one or more business units, than 
intended in its original construction if the change involved 
substantial structural alterations, such as new entrance or hall, in' 
stallationof a new bathroom, installation of new partitions, etc. 



A dwelling unit is defined as a room or group of rooms in- 
tended for the occupancy of one family or household as their 
home and where they sleep. Where part of a residential struc- 
ture is rented out to another family without the quarters 
being completely closed off, it counts as a separate dwelling 
unit only if the family has exclusive use of those rooms with 
permanent cooking facilities and is able to live a separate family 
life. Quarters that are completely closed off do not require 
cooking facilities to qualify as a dwelling unit. 

A. Occupancy. — Tenants include occupants who have agreed 
to pay rent or those who receive the use of living quarters in 
exchange for services, such as janitors, building managers, 
ministers who occupy parsonages, etc., and friends of owners 
who occupy dwelling units free of rent. Vacant dwelling 
units include dwelling units leased but vacant and available 
for sublease. Owner-occupied units include all units where 
the owner lives, even though other individuals or families also 
live there. 

B. Duration. — The years and months that the dwelling unit 
has been continuously occupied by the present occupant, or 
the years and months since the last occupant moved out 
(respectively). 

C. Monthly rent. — For tenant-occupied units it represents 
the rental the tenant has agreed to pay as reported by the 
tenant; for vacant units and units occupied by janitors, mana- 
gers, and other nonowners not paying a rental, the estimated 
amount for which it would probably rent. The estimate 
is based on asking price for the unit and verified by comparison 
with rental of similar units in the same neighborhood. No 
allowance is made for furnishings, concessions, or items included 
in the rental. In the case of summer or seasonal properties, the 
annual rental is divided by 12 to obtain the average monthly 
rental. 

D. Included in rent. -For nonowner-occupied units data 
are obtained on whether or not the following items are included 
in the rental of the unit; furniture, garage, heat, hot water, 
light, cooking fuel, mechanical refrigeration, refrigerating fuel. 

E. Total rooms.-- Dinettes and kitchenettes are counted as 
half rooms; bathrooms, pantries, closets, halls, unenclosed or 
very small enclosed porches are not counted. Rooms in 
basements and attics are not counted unless they are finished 
off and regularly used as living quarters. 

F. Flush toilets. — A flush toilet is an indoor toilet with run- 
ning water which may be in a bathroom or in separate room of 
its own. Chemical toilets and outside toilets of any kind do 
not count as flush toilets. 

G. Bathing units.— -Represents a bathtub or a separate 
shower. A bathtub and a shower in the same room are 
counted as one unit. 

H. Running water.— -Represents running water withm the 
dwelling unit only. 

I. Heating. — The principal type of equipment employed for 
heating the dwelling unit. Where no heating equipment is 
permanently installed, the entry of "none installed" is made. 



127 



B. If converted. Sell explanatory. 

C. Business units. — Self-explanatory. 

D. Exterior material. Only the principal material used in the 
exterior walls is noted. Brick veneer is considered as brick. 

E. Stories. — Refers to the total number of stories in the struc- 
ture. Basements are not counted. The top floor is considered 
as .1 whole story if it is finished as living quarters and has full 
ceiling height over entire area of that floor. If top floor has 
finished rooms but is cut into by the roof, it is considered a 
half story. 

F. Basement.- -Refers to space under the first principal floor 
of the structure. In general, a basement is some kind of excava- 
tion, and, to be counted, must be high enough for a person to 
stand in, and there must be enclosing walls. 

G. Tear built. —The year in which the construction of the 
building was completed. It refers to the original construction 
and not to the date of later remodeling, reconstruction, or con- 
version. The data are obtained from the owner or well- 
informed tenant, if possible; otherwise, the approximate year 
is estimated by the enumerator. (If the building is under coiv 
struction, the year of enumeration is entered as the year built.) 

H. Garage. — Applies to any private garage on the same par- 
cel of land as the residential structure whether it is a separate 
building or attached to the residence itself. A garage on the 
property is to be counted whether it is used by the occupants of 
the main structure or not. A garage in some other location 
which the occupants are using is not counted. 

I. Condition. 3 — Each structure is classified into one of the 
following condition groups based on the enumerator's judgment. 

1. Good condition. — Refers to structures which are in good 
condition and need no repairs or paint. 

2. Minor repairs. — Refers to structures which, while struc- 
turally sound, need minor repairs such as painting, papering, 
stopping of small leaks, pointing up of masonry, etc. 

3. Major repairs. — Refers to structures which need major 
repairs, such as a new roof, replastering, foundations, new 
porches, etc., which, if neglected much longer, will seriously 
impair the property, but which, if made, will put the structure 
in reasonably good condition. 

4. Unfit for use. — Refers to structures unfit for human habi- 
tation; that is, so obsolete or so hazardous to the safety or 
health of the occupant, or in such a dangerous condition that 
it should be destroyed (in the opinion of the enumerator). 

5. Under construction. — Self-explanatory. 

J. Value of property. — Obtained for structures occupied by 
the owner, by asking the following question: "What do you 
think you could get for this property if you wanted to sell it 
now?" 

L. Encumbrance. — Obtained only for structures occupied by 
owner, and includes as mortgaged those subject not only to 
mortgage, but also to deeds of trust, vendor's liens and land 
contracts. Land contract refers to any contract under which 
the property is being bought, but where the change in title is 
to be made in the future. 



This class includes such equipment as portable kerosene stoves 
or electric heaters. 

J. Lighting. — The principal type of lighting equipment used 
in the dwelling unit. 

K. Gooliing. — The principal permanently installed cooking 
equipment in the dwelling unit. 

L. Refrigeration equipynent. — The principal type of equip- 
ment used in the dwelling unit for the refrigeration of food. 

M. dumber and age of all persons.* The number of persons 
who regularly sleep in the unit, whether they have their meals 
there or not. Children away at school or other members of 
the household temporarily absent are included. Servants who 
sleep in the dwelling unit, all roomers, and all members of extra 
families are also included, but not persons staying in the dwell- 
ing unit on a temporary visit or those who only have their 
meals there. All persons in the household, including roomers, 
are classified by age on last birthday. 

N. Race of household. —The principal race of the family. 

O. Roomers. — Obtained by asking, "How many people were 
there in the dwelling unit not related to the principal family 
who have agreed to pay rent for their rooms?" 

P. Extra families. — Obtained by asking, "Are there any in- 
dividuals or groups of persons living here who plan to set up 
a home of their own when business picks up and jobs are avail' 
able?" A son and his wife living with parents, a friend out of 
a job occupying quarters along with established families if they 
plan to move into a dwelling unit of their own when conditions 
improve. The purpose is to find out how many additional 
dwelling units will be required in the city when conditions 
improve. 

4 In the text of this monograph, unless otherwise noted, "overcrowded 
conditions" are deemed to exist where there is more than one person per room. 



3 In the text of this monograph, unless otherwise noted, structures in "poor 
condition" include the total of those in need of major repairs and those unfit 
for use, as defined above. 



128 



II. Types of Maps Useful in the Analysis 
of City Structure and Growth 



s, 



'EVERAL types of maps have been used in this 
study as illustrative of the suggested techniques. 
Scattered throughout the text have been references 
to their method of construction. Here the several 
kinds of maps used in analysis are described. 

1. Land survey maps. — The United States Geolog- 
ical Survey has made maps of a large number of urban 
areas which show the framework of blocks in a city 
and the watercourses, elevations, valleys, and other 
natural topographical features. These maps also 
show proportions of the land area which have been 
built upon. This type of map is available for some 
areas for periods as far back as the early nineties. 
They are useful in revealing the boundaries of the 
settled areas of cities, as well as the interstices within 
the inner structure. 

2. Land coverage maps. — These maps are now 
made as a regular part of all real-property surveys. 
They do not indicate the specific location of buildings 
within the block but they do show the proportion of 
land in each block in permanent use and the portion 
that is occupied by structures. They do not indi- 
cate topographical features but they have the advan- 
tage of being of more recent date. 

3. Settled area maps. — These are maps on which 
all areas have been filled in solidly in which the build- 
ings are close enough together to be classed as urban- 
i. e., where there is at least one house to the acre. 
Such maps are useful in showing the boundaries of 
urban development in a comprehensive view in 
which the detail of single structures is subordinated 
to the outline of the entire urban body. 

4. Land use maps. — These maps show the type 
of use made of each parcel of land in the city. They 
may take one of two forms. Either each type of use 
in the city may be shown on a separate map or all 
the different types of land use are shown on a single 
map. Usually, the intensity of land use is indicated 



by the amount of street frontage occupied. Dif- 
ferent types of cross hatching are used to represent 
different uses and no attempt is made to show sepa- 
rate structures in case adjacent buildings are devoted 
to the same type of use. This type of map is now 
made as a regular part of all real property surveys. 
5. Bloc\ data maps.- -This is a device that over- 
comes some of the disadvantages of other types of 
maps purporting to show data which have been 
gathered in real property surveys. Written in the 
blank space in each block on a map of a city are a 
number of different figures arranged in a definite 
order. Each figure represents a given characteristic 
for that block expressed either as an average of all 
dwelling units within the block or as a percentage of 
the total number of dwelling units or structures in 
the block. It is thus possible to make comparisons 
between numerous different factors in every block. 
The Division of Economics and Statistics of the 
Federal Housing Administration has block data 
maps for 142 cities. This type of map is now made 
as a regular part of all real property surveys. 

6. Special factor maps. — Individual block char- 
acteristics are colored or cross hatched on single 
maps to portray keyed gradations of such character- 
istics. Thus, the relative condition of the several 
types of residential neighborhoods in a city may be 
seen at a glance when mapped according to grada- 
tions of individual characteristics. A series of such 
special factor maps superimposed upon one another 
may serve to delineate an area in which the quality 
of housing is within definite limits. This procedure 
was described at length in part I, chapter III. This 
type of map is now also prepared as a regular part 
of all real property surveys. For each survey, special 
factor maps are drawn for (1) average block rents, (2) 
age of structures, (3) condition of structures, (4) 
owner occupancy, (5) overcrowding, (6) race, (7) 



129 



sanitary facilities (8) length of occupancy for both 
owners and tenants, and (9) mortgage status. 

7. Rental area maps. — These maps show the 
rough pattern of distribution of rental neighbor- 
hoods in any city. The blocks of similar rent are 
grouped together in relatively homogeneous areas. 
Usually some blocks are included that do not fall in 
exactly the same rental group, but rental area maps 
thus smooth out to a certain extent the scattered 
appearance of the array of individual blocks. While 
such rental area maps do not show the intermingling 
of the blocks of different rental groups in the transi- 
tion zones between the clusters of the highest rental 
blocks and those lower in the rental scale they do 
bring out in sharp relief the location of different types 



of residential rental areas. The data for maps of this 
type can either be obtained from real property sur- 
veys or from the sampling method outlined at the 
close of part I, chapter IV. 

8. Dynamic factor maps. Most of the maps listed 
above are primarily of use in the analysis of the struc- 
ture of cities. However, a time series of settled 
area maps, land use maps, and rental area maps are 
useful in studying the growth of cities. Such series, 
spaced at appropriate time intervals are termed 
"dynamic factor" maps. The data for maps based 
on time intervals are difficult to obtain. The source 
materials and method of construction for maps of 
this type have been covered in part II, chapters II 
III, IV. 



130 



III. Research in Urban Growth — An Aid 
in Selecting Mortgage Risks 



A 



LARGE volume of data is readily available 
from numerous sources concerning those urban 
economic activities reflective of the growth of cities. 
It is not necessary that we enumerate here either 
the types of data available or their sources. Those 
are well known to economists and statisticians. It 
is wished to suggest, however, certain techniques 
which have been evolved for use in the better 
measurement of that element of risk inherent in 
economic areas. 

In part II of this monograph, it was pointed out 
that urban growth is caused by both normal popula- 
tion increases and sporadic migrations of the popu- 
lation in response to economic opportunities. Since 
the inherent risk under discussion is measurably 
affected by the relative number of persons capable 
of meeting principal and interest payments on their 
homes, it may be stated that the expansion or con* 
traction, the stability and the diversification of the 
basic sources of employment in the particular city, 
are of primary interest in any attack on this problem. 

Gainful employment, however, depends upon a 
large number and variety of enterprises which may 
be grouped in categories. For our purposes, three 
broad categories have been used— under the head- 
ings of industry, trade, and specialty groups. In 
measuring the basic economic background factors 
without which the community would not exist, 
only employment depending upon income from, or 
distribution to, areas other than the one undei 
examination should be considered. 

Thus, the industry category may be regarded as 
including all those gainfully employed in manu- 
facturing, assembling, fabricating, and refining prod- 
ucts for distribution beyond the borders of the area 
under consideration. The trade category includes 
retail and wholesale trade with other areas, as well 
as finance and transportation. Trade with those 



residing in the area should not be considered. The 
category of specialty groups embraces those activi- 
ties, not specifically covered under industry and 
trade, such as government, resort, education, mining, 
lumbering, fishing, and oil extraction. 

The actual influence of these several types of em- 
ployment activities upon the economic area is de- 
pendent upon the volume of employment embraced 
by each. The influence may be numerically ex- 
pressed by the use of a weight which may be de- 
termined by the proportion of employment in each 
category to total employment in the area. Since it 
is estimated that the persons in basic sources of 
employment support on the average an equal num- 
ber of persons in the service activities such as 
storekeepers, teachers, policemen, doctors, lawyers, 
building mechanics, druggists, etc., double weight 
should be given to the industry and specialty cate- 
gories. Thus, if 14 percent of all gainfully em- 
ployed persons are engaged in industry, the weight 
for the industry category should be 28 percent. 
The reason for giving this double weight is that if 
all the industry were withdrawn from this particular 
city, the total loss of employment would not only 
include those directly engaged in industry but also 
all that portion of the population that was engaged 
in performing services for these industrial workers 

The weight for trade should be obtained by sub- 
tracting the sum of the weights of other applicable 
categories from 100 percent. In most large areas, 
both the industry and trade categories will apply. 
In small areas, other than manufacturing centers, 
the trade category alone may apply. 

When the relative importance of the different 
basic categories has been determined, the next step 
is to estimate the probable long-run trend of em- 
ployment in each category in the next ten years. 
Prospects of an increase in employment of ten per- 



131 



cent or more probably entitle the city to the highest 
rating because such expansion of employment oppor- 
tunities creates an added market for housing. Con- 
versely, prospects of a decline often percent or more 
in employment would usually warrant giving the 
city the lowest rating because such lessened employ- 
ment volume usually means a shrinkage in housing 
demand, an increase in vacancies, and a decline in 
the value of homes. 

Not merely the long-run trend but cyclical 
fluctuations in employment and diversification of 
employment have vital importance in evaluating 
mortgage risk. If there is extreme fluctuation in em- 
ployment in a city between prosperity and depression, 
there is a risk that payments on homes cannot be 
maintained during the depression. Such a city 
should receive a lower rating on this score than one 
which tends to maintain a stable level of employ- 
ment in good times and bad. Diversification is 
also an important factor in rating the economic back- 
ground of a city. In the case of a single-industry 
town, all the eggs are in one basket. If the industry 
moves away, or dwindles because its products are 
outmoded, the demand for housing will suddenly 
be drastically reduced. Hence the rating for a one- 
industry city should be lower than the city with 
diversified industries where the losses in some lines 
of manufacturing may be offset by gains in other lines. 



The economic background rating in a city is a 
composite grade in which the prospects of employ- 
ment in each basic category are estimated and given 
their proper weight, and which is modified also by 
allowance for cyclical fluctuations and diversification. 

Finally, the total of these weighted values may be 
adjusted to conform with the investigator's judg- 
ment (expressed as an index number) of the current 
marketability of typical properties to financially 
capable purchasers. This final adjustment is a com- 
bination of the numerous elements reflecting market- 
ability. 

The suggested procedure of analysis is the fruit 
of researches into urban growth in an endeavor to 
discover a method of measuring the relative risk 
underlying operation in certain areas. It is sug- 
gested here as a method of approach in the formula- 
tion of mortgage policy. Analysts may differ in 
their treatment of individual items, or decide to use 
different systems of weighting, but the use of such 
a measure of this element of risk should be of aid in 
the selection of good mortgage risks. Further re- 
searches in the fields of urban structure and growth 
may, of course, suggest refinements and improve- 
ments in technique. (See Sections 1807 ff- Under- 
writing Manual (Federal Housing Administration) 
Supt. of Public Documents, Washington D. C. Re- 
vised Feb. 1938.). 



132 



Map Supplement 



33 



Index to Supplementary Illustrations 



1. Spot Map of New Dwelling Construction, 

Detroit, Mich., January 1, 1937, to April 30, 
1937 

2. Pattern of Age of Structures in Washington, 

D. C, 1934 

3-21. Average Rents in Residential Areas, 1934: 

3. Atlanta 

4. Charleston, S. C 

5. Cleveland 

6. Dallas 

7- Des Moines 

8. Indianapolis 

9. Jackson, Miss 

10. Jacksonville 

11. Knoxville 

12. Minneapolis 

13. Oklahoma City 

14. Peoria 

15. Providence 

16. Reno, Nev 

17- Richmond, Va 

18. Salt Lake City 

19. Seattle 



Page Fig. Page 
3-21. Average Rents in Residential Areas, 1934 — Con. 

20. Topeka 155 

136 21. Trenton 156 

22. Growth of Settled Areas, New York City, 

137 1800-1934 157 

23-24. Growth of Settled Areas of American Cities: 

138 23. New Orleans, Boston, Philadelphia, 

139 Baltimore, Washington, D. C 158 

140 24. San Francisco, Kansas City, Mo., Salt 

141 Lake City, Dallas, Charleston, W. Va . 159 

142 25-29. Distribution of Rental Areas of Recent Date 

143 Compared With Early Settled Areas- 

144 25. Dallas 160 

145 26. Detroit 161 

146 27. New York 162 

147 28. Philadelphia 163 

148 29. Salt Lake City 164 

149 30-34. Movement of Types of Residential Areas: 

150 30. Bluefield, W. Va 165 

151 31. Chicago 166 

152 32. Miami 167 

153 33. Richmond, Va 168 

154 34. Washington, D. C 169 



135 



FIGURE 1 



SPOT MAP OF NEW DWELLING CONSTRUCTION 

DETROIT, MICHIGAN 

JANUARY I, 1937 TO APRIL 30, 1937 




SOURCE DEPARTMENT OF BUILDINGS AND SAFETY, DETROIT, MICHIGAN 



FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION 
DIVISION OF ECONOMICS ANO STATISTICS 



136 



FIGURE 2 



PATTERN OF AGE OF STRUCTURES 
WASHINGTON, D.C. , 1934 



SCALE IN MILES 



I 1 I I 1 



MEDIAN AGE OF STRUCTURES BY BLOCKS 



1904 AND BEFORE 
PUBLIC PROPERTY IN USE 



1905 - 1919 MM 
1920 - 1934 I 




SOURCE CIVIL WORKS ADMINISTRATION 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA REAL PROPERTY INVENTORY. 1931 



137 



FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION 
DIVISION OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS 



FIGURE 3 



AVERAGE RENTS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS 
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 1934 



LESS THAN $10 00 



$1000 TO $19 99 



$2000 TO $29 99 



$30 00 TO $49 99 



CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT 



$50 00 OR MORE 



PUBLIC PROPERTY IN USE 




SOURCE U S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, 

ATLANTA REAL PROPERTY INVENTORY, 1934 



FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION 
DIVISION OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS 



138 



FIGURE 4 



AVERAGE RENTS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS 
CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA 1934 



LESS THAN $10 00 



$10 00 TO $19.99 



$20.00 TO $29.99 



$30.00 TO $49.99 
CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT 



$50 00 OR MORE ^HB 
PUBLIC PROPERTY IN USE 




SOURCE U S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

CHARLESTON REAL PROPERTY INVENTORY. 1934 

1G3253— 39 10 



FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION 
DIVISION OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS 



139 



FIGURE 5 

AVERAGE RENTS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS 
CLEVELAND, OHIO AND ENVIRONS 

1934 



LESS THAN $10.00 



$10.00 - $19.99 



$20.00 - $29.99 



$30.00 - $49.99 




SOURCE U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

CLEVELAND REAL PROPERTY INVENTORY, 1934 



FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION 
DIVISION OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS 



140 



FIGURE 6 



AVERAGE RENTS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS 
DALLAS, TEXAS 1934 




X>' 



SOURCE U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

DALLAS REAL PROPERTY INVENTORY, 1934 



LESS THAN $1000 

$10.00 TO $19 99 

$2000 TO $2999 

$30 00 TO $49 99 

$5000 OR MORE 

CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT ESBS 

PUBLIC PROPERTY IN USE I 1 

FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION 
DIVISION OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS 



141 



FIGURE 7 



AVERAGE RENTS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS 
DES MOINES, IOWA 1934 



LESS THAN $10.00 I I $10.00 TO $19 99 WWA $2000 TO $29.99 

$30.00 TO $49.99 I%^1 $50.00 OR MORE HR 

CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT l&iiSi PUBLIC PROPERTY IN USE K...,-. 




SOURCE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, 

DES MOINES REAL PROPERTY INVENTORY. 1934 



FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION 
DIVISION OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS 



142 



FIGURE 8 



AVERAGE RENTS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS 
INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA 1934 



LESS THAN $10 00 1 1 $10 00 TO $19.99 111111 $20.00 TO $29.99 11 

$30 00 TO $49.99 Wfffy $50 00 OR MORE 

CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT £:*:& 



PUBLIC PROPERTY IN USE 



ru— , 




\ I 



SOURCE U. S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

INDIANAPOLIS REAL PROPERTY INVENTORY, 1934 



FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION 
DIVISION OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS 



143 



FIGURE 9 



AVERAGE RENTS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS 
JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI 1934 



LESS THAN $10 00 



$10.00 TO $19.99 



$20.00 TO $29 99 



$30 00 TO $49.99 Y///A $50 00 OR MORE ■■■ 

CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT fcftlvJ PUBLIC PROPERTY IN USE 




SOURCE U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

JACKSON REAL -PROPERTY INVENTORY, 1934 



FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION 
DIVISION OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS 



144 



FIGURE 10 



AVERAGE RENTS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS 
JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA I934 



LESS THAN $10.00 L I $10.00 TO $1999 1 M $20.00 TO $29.99 

$30 00 TO $49.99 wVMyk $50.00 OR MORE 
CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT Eiraffi PUBLIC PROPERTY IN USE I 




SOURCE U S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

JACKSONVILLE REAL PROPERTY INVENTORY, 1934 



FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION 
DIVISION OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS 



145 



FIGURE 1 1 



AVERAGE RENTS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS 
KNOXVILLE, TENNESSEE I934 



LESS THAN $10 00 I 1 $10 00 TO $19 99 I I $20 00 TO $29 99 

$30 00 TO $49 99 Wmfi $50.00 OR MORE ^B 

CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT tHa PUBLIC PROPERTY IN USE I 




SOURCE U S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

KNOXVILLE REAL PROPERTY INVENTORY, 1934 



146 



FEOERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION 
DIVISION OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS 



FIGURE 12 



AVERAGE RENTS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS 
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA I934 



LESS THAN $10 00 I I $10 00 TO $19.99 WWA $20 00 TO $29.99 

$30 00 TO $49 99 Wfflft, $5000 OR MORE 

PUBLIC PROPERTY IN USE I 



CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT 







SOURCE U S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

MINNEAPOLIS REAL PROPERTY INVENTOR* 1931 



147 



FEDERAL MOUSING ADMINISTRATION 
DIVISION OF ECONOMICS ANO STATISTICS 



FIGURE 13 



AVERAGE RENTS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS 
OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA 1934 




SOURCE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

OKLAHOMA CITY REAL PROPERTY INVENTORY, 1934 



FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION 
DIVISION OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS 



148 



FIGURE 14 

AVERAGE RENTS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS 
PEORIA, ILLINOIS 1934 

LESS THAN $10.00 I 1 $10.00 TO $19.99 I I $20.00 TO $29.99 L J 

$3000 TO $49 99 ^^ $50 00 OR MORE 

CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT W8M PUBLIC PROPERTY IN USE 1 1 

I ^' 




SOURCE U S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

PEORIA REAL PROPERTY INVENTORY, 1934 



FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION 
DIVISION OF ECONOMICS 8 STATISTICS 



149 



FIGURE 15 



AVERAGE RENTS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS 
PROVIDENCE, RHODE ISLAND 1934 



LESS THAN $ 10.00 



$10.00 TO $19 99 



$20 00 TO $29 99 



$30.00 TO $49 99 



$50.00 OR MORE 



CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT ffl$M PUBLIC PROPERTY IN USE 




SOURCE' U S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

PROVIDENCE REAL PROPERTY INVENTORY. 1934 



FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION 
DIVISION OF ECONOMICS ANO STATISTICS 



150 



FIGURE 16 



AVERAGE RENTS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS 
RENO. NEVADA 1934 



LESS THAN $10 00 I J $10 00 TO $19 99 L $20 00 TO $29.99 L 

$3000 to $4999 Vyyyz^ $5000 or more I 

CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT Eiliiiij PUBLIC PROPERTY IN USE 




SOURCE U S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

RENO REAL PROPERTY INVENTORY, 1934 



FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION 
DIVISION OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS 



151 



FIGURE 17 



AVERAGE RENTS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS 
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 1934 



LESS THAN $10.00 I.... ,1 $10.00 TO $19.99 W//%\ $20.00 TO $29.99 frVMi 

$ 30.00 TO $ 49.99 fr%^ $ 50.00 OR MORE B& 

CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT K'ffl'l PUBLIC PROPERTY IN USE 1 \ 




SOURCE. U S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

RICHMOND REAL PROPERTY INVENTORY, 1934 



152 



FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION 
DIVISION OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS 



FIGURE 18 

AVERAGE RENTS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS 
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 1934 



LESS THAN $10 00 1 1 $10.00 TO $19.99 Iflli $20.00 TO $29.99 
$30.00 TO $49.99 [%%%1 $50.00 OR MORE 
CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT W8M PUBLIC PROPERTY IN USE L 




SOURCE: u. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

SALT LAKE CITY REAL PROPERTY INVENTORY, 1934 



FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION 
DIVISION OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS 



153 



FIGURE 19 



AVERAGE RENTS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS 
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 1934 



LESS THAN $10.00 



$10.00 TO $19.99 1 . . I $20 00 TO $29 99 

$30.00 TO $49 99 HH $50 00 OR MORE Hi 

CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT Ei&::3 PUBLIC PROPERTY IN USE 




SOURCE.' U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

SEATTLE PEAL PROPERTY INVENTORY. 1934 



154 



FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION 
DIVISION OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS 



FIGURE 20 



AVERAGE RENTS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS 
TOPEKA, KANSAS 1934 



LESS THAN $10.00 



$10.00 TO $19.99 
$30.00 TO $49.99 VVjW $50.00 OR MORE 



$20.00 TO $29.99 



CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT IV.V.1 PUBLIC PROPERTY IN USE 



E3 




SOURCE: U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

TOPEKA REAL PROPERTY INVENTORY, 1934 



FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION 
DIVISION OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS 



163253—39 11 



155 



FIGURE 21 



0) 




< 




UJ 




tr 




< 


*- 




ro 


_i 


O) 


< 




h- 




z 


>• 


Ld 


UJ 


Q 


if) 


UJ 


a: 

UJ 

~3 


tz 




2 


£ 




UJ 




2 


(0 




1- 


„ 


2 


z 


UJ 


o 


tr 


1- 




z 


UJ 
(0 


UJ 

or 


<r 


1- 



UJ 








UJ 






cr 


CO 






i- 


3 






co 








Q 


z 




UJ 








or 


CO 
CO 


>- 




o 


UJ 


1- 




2 


z 


cr 






CO 


UJ 
0. 




cr 
O 


3 
CD 


o 

cr 

0. 




O 

o 


< 

cr 

(- 


o 




ci 


z 


CD 




m 


UJ 


3 




<0 

1 — 1 


o 


0. 




o 


I 

0> 


CT> 


01 


o 


0> 


CJ> 


CT) 


o 


0) 


0) 


01 






CM 


sf 


<0 


<o 


<o 


«0 


Z 
< 


o 


o 


O 


I 


1- 


1- 


1- 


1- 










o 


o 


o 


CO 


o 


o 


o 


CO 


o 


o 


o 


UJ 




<M 


PO 


_l 


<o 


<o 


<o 



156 



FIGURE 22 



GROWTH OF SETTLED AREAS 
NEW YORK CITY 

1800 - 1934 








157 



FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION 
DIVISION OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS 



FIGURE 23 

GROWTH OF SETTLED AREAS OF AMERICAN CITIES 

MAPS SHOW EXTENT OF GROWTH AT INDICATED DATES 



NEW ORLEANS 




1841 





BOSTON 








* 



\ 



tit 




PHILADELPHIA 






1900 





BALTIMORE 





1792 \ Y$ 






1852 \ V~ 






^1 
i88o \ yJ 






i904 \ yJ 






M 

I929 \^^ 



































WASHINGTON D. C. 



I80I 




-4* A : 



—*^^ 






FEOERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION 
DIVISION OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS 



158 



FIGURE 24 



GROWTH OF SETTLED AREAS OF AMERICAN CITIES 

MAPS SHOW EXTENT OF GROWTH AT INDICATED DATES 



SAN FRANCISCO 







KANSAS CITY, MO. 







SALT LAKE CITY 




p 






7" • "1 


*■ 


i 

i 
i 
i 


\ 




r .J, 


L—i 


■ ! 


'■J; 


1889 '' 


< 


^ xJ 









Mh 


i* 


3 -^ 


1911 






DALLAS 













/v 








/V 








•V 








yv 






^ <. /I 








) 








t 








ft 






i 








k 






\Ks 


Bl ' 




~)'^i 


F 




















yaf 


1 






^^ iff 


1 










L l, ^ 








L ' qtf^- 








It 








1885 ""ivl 






1899 (^1 








1922 X \ 








1934 Tj 





































CHARLESTON, W. VA. 




159 



FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION 
DIVISION OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS 



FIGURE 25 



DISTRIBUTION OF RENTAL AREAS 1934 
COMPARED WITH SETTED AREAS OF 1892 

DALLAS, TEXAS 





x/' 



LEGEND 

LOW RENT RESIDENTIAL 

MEDIAN RENT RESIDENTIAL 

HIGH RENT RESIDENTIAL 

CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT I 

PUBLIC PROPERTY IN USE 1 , 1 

PRESENT CITY LIMITS 

SETTLED AREA OF 1892 INDICATED 
BY HEAVY CONTOUR LINE — i__T»- 



SOURCE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

DALLAS REAL PROPERTY INVENTORY. 1934 



FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION 
DIVISION OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS 



160 



DISTRIBUTION OF RENTAL AREAS 1936 

COMPARED WITH SETTLED AREAS OF 1890 

DETROIT, MICHIGAN AND ENVIRONS 




LOW RENT RESIDENTIAL 
MEDIAN RENT RESIDENTIAL 
HIGH RENT RESIDENTIAL 
CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT 
PUBLIC PROPERTY IN USE 
PRESENT CITY LIMITS 



SETTLED AREA OF 1890 INDICATED 
BY HEAVY CONTOUR LINE 



FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION 
DIVISION OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS 



161 



FIGURE 27 

DISTRIBUTION OF RENTAL AREAS 1934 

COMPARED WITH SETTLED AREAS OF 1881 

NEW YORK, NEW YORK 




LOW RENT RESIDENTIAL 

MEDIAN RENT RESIDENTIAL 

HIGH RENT RESIDENTIAL 

CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT 

PUBLIC PROPERTY IN USE 

PRESENT CITY LIMITS 

SETTLED AREA OF 1881 INDICATED 

BY HEAVY CONTOUR LINE ^^ 



SOURCE: RENT DATA FROM REAL PROPERTY INVENTORY. CITY OF NEW YORK, 1934 
NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY 



162 



FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION 
DIVISION OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS 



FIGURE 28 

DISTRIBUTION OF RENTAL AREAS 1934 

COMPARED WITH SETTLED AREAS OF 1881 

PHILADELPHIA. PENNSYLVANIA 




LOW RENT RESIDENTIAL 

MEDIAN RENT RESIDENTIAL 

HIGH RENT RESIDENTIAL 

CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT 

PUBLIC PROPERTY IN USE 

PRESENT CITY LIMITS 

SETTLED AREA OF 1881 INDICATED 

BY HEAVY CONTOUR LINE ^^V 



SOURCE: RENT DATA FROM PHILADELPHIA REAL PROPERTY SURVEY, 1934 
PHILADELPHIA HOUSING ASSOCIATION 



163 



FIGURE 29 



DISTRIBUTION OF RENTAL AREAS 1934 

COMPARED WITH SETTLED AREAS OF 1889 

SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 




LOW RENT RESIDENTIAL 

MEDIAN RENT RESIDENTIAL 

HIGH RENT RESIDENTIAL 

CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT 

PUBLIC PROPERTY IN USE 

PRESENT CITY LIMITS 

SETTLED AREA OF 1889 INDICATED 
BY HEAVY CONTOUR LINE 






164 



FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION 
DIVISION OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS 



FIGURE 30 



GROWTH OF RESIDENTIAL AREAS 
BLUEFIELD, WEST VIRGINIA 

1900 - 1935 



HIGH GRADE RESIDENTIAL AREA ^H INTERMEDIATE RESIDENTIAL AREA 

LOW GRADE RESIDENTIAL AREA I .1 CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT 



PUBLIC PROPERTY IN USE 1 ; 1 






165 



FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION 
DIVISION OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS 



FIGURE 31 



GROWTH OF RESIDENTIAL AREAS 
CHICAGO 1857-1930 



HIGH-GRADE 
RESIDENTIAL AREA 



INTERMEDIATE 
RESIDENTIAL AREA 



LOW-GRADE 
RESIDENTIAL AREA 





1899 





SOURCE HOYT, HOMER, ONE HUNDRED YEARS OF LAND VALUES IN CHICAGO, 
(CHICAGO, UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS, 1933) P 319 



FEOERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION 
DIVISION OF ECONOMICS 8 STATISTICS 



166 



FIGURE 32 



MOVEMENT OF TYPES OF RESIDENTIAL AREAS 



MIAMI, FLORIDA 1921 - 1936 









LOW RENT RESIDENTIAL 
MEDIAN RENT RESIDENTIAL 
HIGH RENT RESIDENTIAL 
CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT 
PUBLIC PROPERTY IN USE 
PRESENT CITY LIMITS 



167 



FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION 
OlVISlON OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS 



FIGURE 33 



MOVEMENT OF TYPES OF RESIDENTIAL AREAS 
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 1910 - 1934 



r"\ 





LEGEND 



LOW RENT RESIDENTIAL 
MEDIAN RENT RESIDENTIAL 
HIGH RENT RESIDENTIAL 
CENTRAL BUSINESS AREA 
PUBLIC PROPERTY IN USE 
PRESENT CITY LIMITS 



168 



FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION 
DIVISION OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS 



FIGURE 34 



CO 
< 

L.J 

< 



-z. 

LU 
Q 

CO 
Ld 

q: 

Lu 
O 



CO 
Ll) 
Q_ 



> 

o 



oo 

00 
CD 



-3- 

o 

<7> 



O 

Q 
O 

o 

CO 

< 



>^w 




2 

o en 
< t? 

5 
o o 

2 2 



en 



o 



169 



Subject Index 



Aerial photography, mapping of urban areas, 9, 105, 106 

Age of structures: 49, 59; in various cities, 34-37; pattern of, 34-47, 51; map, 
Washington, D. C, 137 

Aircraft, effect on urban decentralization, 3, 102 

Aliens, See Immigration 

Analysis, methods of, See Techniques, Principles 

Apartment areas, deluxe, 24, 118, 120 

Apartment house zone, See Zones 

Appurtenances of dwelling units, 60 

Automobile: as factor in transportation to work, 20; Automobile Manu- 
facturers Association, 102; See Transportation 

Average rents, pattern of, 34 

Axial growth: 6, 15, 19, 20, 26, 96-97, 99, 100-102, 104; See City growth 

Bartholomew, Harland, 15, 23, 24 

Bath, dwelling units without: 49; pattern of in Richmond, Va., 39, 41; 

pattern of related to rents, 53-54 
Bathing equipment, 60 
Blighted areas, 27 

Block, city, as unit of measurement, 4, 27 
Block data maps: described, 4, 28, 31, 48, 124, 129; Richmond, Va., 30; See 

Maps 
Bureau of the Census: cooperation in Real Property Inventories, 124; house to 

house surveys, 125 
Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, supervision of Real Property 

Surveys, 124 
Burgess, E. W., 17 
Business district: 20, 107-109; includes retail, financial, office centers 19; 

growth of, map, Chicago, 110; See Zones 

California Taxpayers Association, 91 

Central growth: 26, 97, 99, 100-102, 104, 107-110; influenced by trans- 
portation, 101 

Central heat, See Heat and heating equipment 

Central Statistical Board: review of technique and scope of Real Property 
Surveys, 124; technique for a Real Property Survey, 125 

Chicago Traction and Subway Commission, report, 92 

Chinese quarter, San Francisco, 62, 63 

Circular form of city growth: 4, 12; See City growth 

Cities: decentralization of, 3, 102; shape of, 4; ground plan of, 9-14; See 
Index of cities, City growth 

City block, as unit of measurement, 27 

City economy, 84, 131-132 

City growth: methods of analyzing, 5-6; rates of, 5-6, 89; direction of, 6; 
influence of topography on, 6, 100-101 ; influence of rate of on neighborhood 
growth, 81-92; form of, 96-104; types of growth, 96; pattern of for Chicago, 
97; influence of transportation on, 101-104; shifts in neighborhood location 
114-122; principles of, 117-122; maps of for various cities, 157-159; See 
Concentric circle theory of growth, Neighborhood growth, Residential 
areas, Sector theory of growth 

City Plan Commission, St. Louis, Missouri, cited, 92 

Civil Works Administration, Real Property Inventories, 33, 70, 113, 124, 137 

Colored maps, See maps. 

Commercial land use, See Land use 

Community leaders, See Leaders of the Community 

Commuters zone, See Zones 

Competition: between owner and tenant, 50; between new and old dwellings, 
81 

Concentration of land use, See Land use 

163253—3 ■ - 12 , ' 



Concentration of Negro population: 62-3, 68-71; See Negro 

Concentric circles: 6, 17, 100; circular pattern, 12 

Concentric circle theory of city growth: land use distribution, 17; quali- 
fications of, 17; modifications of, 20, 23; criticized, 20; pattern of manu- 
facturing as contradictory of, 20; workingmen's homes, zone of, 23; and rent 
areas, 76-77 

Conveniences, use of, 59 

Condition of structures: 59; map of, Charleston, S. C, 29; pattern of in 
Richmond, Va., 39; pattern of, and rent, 52-53, 56; See Structures 

Construction, cycle of, 92-95 

Cooking equipment, 60-61 

Criminal, 27 

Crowding, See Over-crowding 

Cycle of new construction, 92-95 

Czechs, 62 

Data used: 124-125; definitions of, 125, 127-28; available in research, 131-132 

Davie, M. R., 20 

Deluxe apartment areas, 118, 120 

Decentralization: of cities, 3, 102, 104; of industry, 110 

Department of Buildings and Safety, Detroit, Mich., 136 

Department of Commerce, See U. S. Department of Commerce 

Diffusion of racial and national groups, 62-71 

Dwelling units: types vary between cities, table, 25-26; owner-occupied, 
37-39; having no private bath, 39, 41-42; lacking central heat, 42, 44; 
over-crowded, 44, 46; composition of and inhabitants, 58-71; Real Prop- 
erty Survey definitions, 127-128 

Dynamic factor maps, See Maps 

Ecology, Human, 73 
Elements in measuring housing, 28 
Elevated lines: 26; See Transportation 
Enumeration district, 27 

Factors in block data maps: 28; See Maps 

Fairchild Aerial Surveys, maps, 106 

Family, See Multiple family areas 

Fashionable residential areas: shifts in location of, 115; principles of, 116-119; 
See Residential areas 

Federal Emergency Relief Administration, 124-125 

Federal Home Loan Bank Board, 124 

Federal Housing Administration: 19, 73; Division of Economics and Statistics, 
4; method of research in selecting mortgages, 4, 131-132; Real Property 
Survey Technique preparation, 88, 124-125; has block data maps, 129 

Financial district, See Zones 

Fisher, Carl, 119 

Fisher, Ernest M., 17, 20, 96 

Fisher, R. A., 32 

Foster, R. R., 94 

Fuel for heating, 60 

Germans, 62 

Ground plan of cities, 9-14 

Growth of city, See City growth 

Haig, R. M., 17 

Heat, central: pattern of units lacking, 42-45; map, Richmond, Va., 45; 

dwelling units without, Richmond, Va., 49, 54-55 
Heating equipment and fuel, 60 
Heavy manufacturing zone, See Zones 



171 



High rent poles, 74 

Homes, single-family, See Single-family homes, Dwelling units 
House to house surveys, 1 25 

Housing characteristics: factors in block data map, 4 5, 28; measured by rent, 
5, 31, 50, 56 58; indicative ot poor housing, map, Richmond, Va., 47; 
i tors in each rental group, 49 
Hoyt, Homer, 25, 83, 91, 93, 105, 108 110. 166 
Hurd, R. M„ 19, 96 

Immigration: effect on city growth, 6; produced national city areas, 62; cyclical 

pattern of, 89; aliens entering and leaving the U. S., chart, 90 
Industrial land use, See Land use 

Industrial sites: 23; location on the periphery, 20; invading home areas, 111 
Industrial zones, See Zones 

Intensity of land use: 9, 24, 59, 105-111; See Land use 
Internal migration: U. S., 1920-1937, 89; from farms to cities, 89 

Japanese, concentration, 63 

Land coverage maps, See Maps 

Land survey maps, See Maps 

Land use: patterns of, 4, 5; direction of movement, 6; intensity of, 9, 24, 59, 
105-111; segregation of, 15-26; concentration of, 19; variance of industrial, 
23; influence of topography on, 24; changes in urban, 105-111; analysis of 
changes, 107; central city commercial, 107-108; outside central city com- 
mercial, 108-109; industrial, 109-111; See Maps, Land use 

Land use maps, See Maps 

Lang, R. O., 69 

Lateral growth: 100, 105; changes limiting commercial and industrial, 107-108; 
See Axial growth; Nuclear growth 

Leaders of the community, 117 

Lending, See Mortgage lending 

Light manufacturing district, See Zones 

Lighting equipment, 60 

Lynd, Robert S., and Helen M., 117 

Manufacturing zone, See Zones 

Maps: Block data, 4, 28, 30, 48, of Richmond, Va., 30; Colored, described, 28; 
Dynamic factor, 6, 15, 105, 112, 113, Washington, D. C, 113, adapted to 
indicate land use, 105, technique of preparation, 112-113, described, 130; 
Land coverage, 4, 9, 12, 13, 19, of Emporia, Kans., 13, described, 129; Land 
survey, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, of Washington, D. C, 10, of Los Angeles, 11, of 
South Chicago, 111., 16; Land use, 5, 15, 18, 19, 21, 22, of Emporia, Kans., 18, 
of Lancaster, Pa., 21, of Wellington, Va., 22, of New York City, 106; Rental 
area, 5, 113, 160-164, of Washington, D. C, 113, of Dallas, 160, of Detroit, 
161, of New York City, 162, of Philadelphia, 163, of Salt Lake City, 164; 
Settled area, 4, 6, 12, 14, 96-104, 113, 98, 103, 157-159, described, 129, types 
of, 97, sources of data, 97, of Chicago, 14, 98, of Washington, D. C, 103, 
113, of New York City, 157, of New Orleans, Bos' on, Philadelphia, Balti- 
more, Washington, D. C, 158, of San Francisco, Kansas,City, Mo., Salt Lake 
City, Dallas, Charleston, W. Va., 159; Spot, 28, 136, of Detroit, 136; Topo- 
graphical, 4; Transparent, 5, 47, 48, of Richmond, Va., 47 

Mayors Committee on City Planning of the City of New York, 24 

Merrick, George, 119 

Methods, of Analysis, See Techniques, Principles 

Mexicans, 62, 63 

Migration from farms to cities, 89 

Mills, Frederick, C, 32 

Mortgage lending: and neighborhood movements, 3; importance of neighbor- 
hood analysis, 27; FHA method of research in selecting mortgages, 131-132 

Multiple family areas, 24 

National Bureau of Economic Research, 94 

National Resources Committee, report of the Urbanism Committee, cited, 3 

Nationalities: 62-71 ; establish neighborhoods, 62; See Immigration, Segregation 

of racial and national groups 
Negro: pattern of areas, 42-43, 69-71; pattern of non-white population, maps, 

Richmond, Va., 43, Chicago, 69, Washington, D. C, 70; occupancy, 49, 54; 

distribution of, 62-71 ; population in cities, chart, 64 
Neighborhood growth: zoning, 3; influenced by rate of city growth, 81-92; 

principles of, 114-119; forces changing, 121; See City growth. Sector theory, 

Residential areas 



New dwelling construction, Detroit, map, 136 

Ncwcomb, C. S., 69 

Newman, W. H., 93 

New York City Housing Authority, 162 

Non-whites: concentration, diffusion, segregation of, 62 71; See Negro, Races, 

Nationalities 
Norwegians, 62 

Nuclear growth: 6, 26, 96-97, 99-102, 104; See Nuclei, City growth 
Nuclei: 10, 12, 17, 19, 23, 26, 96-97, 99-102, 104; See Nuclear growth, City 

growth 

Occupancy: length of, 61; distribution of, 61; non-white, distribution of, 62 71 ; 

See Owner-occupancy, Tenant occupancy 
Office district. See Zones 

Outlying shopping centers: result of three factors, 109; See Zones 
Over-crowding: 44, 46, 49, 55, 58; pattern of, map, Richmond. Va., 46 
Owner-occupancy: 32, 37-39, 61; pattern of, map, Richmond, Va., 38 

Park, R. E., 17 

Pattern: of neighborhoods, 4; of land use, 4, 5; clue to, 9; circular, 12, 17; of 
cities, 12, 15; of heavy industry, 23; of urban land uses, over-all, 24; of 
residential areas 27-28, 72-80; of average rents, 34; of age of structures, 34; 
of owner-occupancy, 37; of condition of structure, 39; of dwelling units with 
no private bath, 39; of units lacking central heat, 42-45; of Negro 
areas, 42-43, 69-71; of immigration, 89; of city growth, 96, 117-122; of 
movement of residential areas, 112-123; map, of age of structures, 
Washington, D. C, 137 

Persons per room, 60 

Philadelphia Housing Association, 163 

Photographs, aerial, 105, 106 

Polish, 62 

Poor housing, shown by coincidence of factors, transparent maps, 47 

Population growth; cessation considered, 3; continuation considered, 3; 
variations in the rate of, 84-89; maximum and minimum rates of, 84-89; 
compared with rent and residential building, chart, 94 

Principles: of urban structure and growth, 3, 102; governing distribution of 
residential areas, 5; of shifting residential areas, 114-122 

Proudfoot, Malcolm J., 108 

Public Works Administration, 124 

Races: influence on rents, 5; diffusion, segregation and concentration of, 62-71 

Radial extension, See Axial growth 

Rapid transit: effect on decentralization, 3, 101, 102; See Axial growth, 
Transportation 

Ratcliff, R. U., 20, 109 

Rate of city growth; influence on neighborhood growth, 81-95; See City 
growth 

Real Estate promoters, 119 

Real Property Inventories or Surveys: 4, 5, 28, 49; units of measurement 
available in, 27; history, of 124-125; standard technique for, 125; enumera- 
tion schedule, reproduction, 126 

Refrigeration equipment, 60-61 

Rent: as measure of housing characteristics, 5, 31, 49-50 56-58; distribution 
groupings, 31; related to various housing factors, 50-57; pattern of resi- 
dential rent areas, 72-81; compared with population growth and residential 
building, chart, 94 

Rental area maps, See Maps 

Research in urban growth, 131-132 

Residential areas: segregation from other types, 4; patterns of, 4, 27,72-80, 
112-123; location of different types, 15; wide variance of types, 24; char- 
acteristics of, 28, 59-61; maps of, Richmond, Va., 35, Atlanta, Ga., 138, 
Charleston, S. C, 139, Cleveland, Ohio, 140, Dallas, Texas, 141, Des Moines, 
Iowa, 142, Indianapolis, Ind., 143, Jackson, Miss., 144, Jacksonville, Fla., 
145, Knoxville, Tenn., 146, Minneapolis, Minn., 147, Oklahoma City, Okla. 
148, Peoria, 111., 149, Providence, R. I., 150, Reno, Nevada, 151, Richmond 
Va., 152, Salt Lake City, Utah, 153, Seattle, Wash., 154, Topeka, Kans., 
155, Trenton, N. J., 156; fashionable shifts in location of, 48, 114-122; pro- 
tection of, 88; protection of by zoning, 111; principles of, 116-119; growth 
of, maps, Bluefield, W. Va., 165, Chicago, 111., 83, 166, Miami, Fla., 167, 
Richmond, Va., 168, Washington, D. C, 169 



172 



Residential building: pattern of, map, Richmond, Va., 36; pattern of in poor 
condition, map, Richmond, Va., 40; compared with rent and population 
growth, chart, 94; location of new construction, 95; spot map of new 
construction in Detroit, 136 

Residential values, 61 

Residential zone, See Zones 

Retail shopping district. See Zones, Outlying shopping centers 

Rooms, number of, 60 

Running water, 60 

Russian, 62 

Satellite business centers, See Nuclei 

Sections, commercial, industrial, residential: 5, 6, 15, 17, 107-111 

Sector theory of rent areas: 76, 112; See Concentric circle theory, City growth 

Segregation of racial and national groups, 62-71 

Settled area, shape of, 6 

Settled area maps, See Maps 

Shopping centers, See Outlying shopping centers, Retail shopping district. 
Zones 

Single-family homes, percenta e of land used for single-family dwellings, 24 

Single industry cities, 84 

Slovaks, 62 

Slums: application of concentric circle theory to, 23; technique for locating, 
47-48; See Zones 

Spot maps, See Maps 

Standard technique for Real Property Inventories, 125 

Star-shaped form of city growth, 4, 12 

Static city: stable neighborhoods, 81; Charleston, S. C. as an example, 82 

Street plan, 9 

Structures: density of, 12, single-family, 24-26, 59, 111; two-family, 24-26, 59; 
multi-family, 24-26, 59; apartment houses, 24-25, 111; residential char- 
acteristics of, 28; pattern of condition of, 39; in poor condition, 49; com- 
position of, 58; Real Property Survey definitions, 127-128 

Sub-centers, See Nuclei 

Subdivided land, 9 

Subways: 26; ridge of tall apartments along in New York City, 24; See 
Transportation 

Superhighways: effect on decentralization, 102, 104; See Transportation 

Swedes, 62 

Techniques: of the analysis, 3; of use of maps, 4, 5, 48; of use of city patterns 
by factors, 5; tabulations on a block basis; housing characteristics measured 
by rent, 5; alternative in analysis of residential areas, 49-57; of measuring 
movement of rental neighborhoods, 112, 113 



Tenant occupancy: 32, 61; related to rent, 49, 52 

Thompson, W. S., 90, 94 

Topographical features: land elevations, 12; water courses, 12 

Topographical maps, See Maps 

Topography: 9; influence on city growth, 9, 12, 17, 100; influence on industrial 

land use, 23; influence offset by tunnels and bridges, 100-101 
Transparent maps, See Maps 

Transportation and city growth, 12, 17, 19, 20, 26, 101-104 
Turks, 62 
Two-family areas, 24 

Unit of measurement in determining patterns of residential areas: individual 

dwelling units, 27; individual structures, 27; city blocks, 27; enumeration 

districts, 27; "economic areas," 27 
U. S. Census Bureau, 62 
U. S. Department of Agriculture, 94 
U. S. Department of Commerce: 24-26, 29-30, 35-47, 49, 51-55, 61-62, 

64-65, 67, 73, 77, 85-87, 92, 94, 102, 109, 138-156, 160; supervision of Real 

Property Inventories, 124 
U. S. Department of the Interior, 10-11, 16 
U. S. Department of Labor, 90, 94 
U. S. Geo'ogical Survey, 11, 16 

Vacancies, 32, 60, 61 
Value, residential, 61 
Vertical growth of cities, 96-97, 99-100, 105 

Water courses, effect on city growth, 12, 23 

Water, running, 60 

Weimer, Arthur, 108 

Whelpton, P. K., 90, 94 

Wholesale district, See Zones 

Wickens, D. L., 94 

Workingmen's homes, See Zones 

Works Progress Administration, 13, 18, 21-22, 28, 33, 60, 65, 124-125 

Young, Hugh A., 23 

Zones: 5, 17-20, 23, 107-111; residential, 17, 23, 107-111; heavy manufactur- 
ing and industrial, 17, 20, 107-111; retail shopping district, 17 19, 107-111; 
wholesale and light manufacturing, 17, 19-20, 107-111; financial and office, 
17-19, 107-111; workingmen's homes, 17, 23, 107-111; commuter, 17, 23; 
apartment house, 17; slums, 23, 108 



173 



Index of Cities 



Akron, Ohio: Negro population, 64; Rent, distribution of blocks by, 74; High 
rent area, location of, 74; Growth, causes of, 84; Population increase, 
1920-1930, 86 
Albuquerque, New Mexico: Non-white population, concentration of, 66 
Arlington, County Virginia: In Washington growth pattern, 100 
Arlington Heights, Illinois: In Chicago growth pattern, 66 
Asheville, North Carolina: Negro population, 1930, 64; Non-white popula- 
tion, concentration of, 66 
Atlanta, Georgia: Negro population, 63; Negro population, 1930, 64; Non- 
white population, concentration of, 66; Rent, distribution of blocks by, 
73, 74, 76; Rent areas, pattern of, distribution of, 77; Population, increase, 
1920-1930, 86; Average rents, map, 138 
Atlantic City, New Jersey: Industries, absence of in, 23; Negro population, 

1930, 64 
Augusta, Georgia: Negro population, 1930, 64 

Austin, Texas: Negro population, concentration of, 66; Residential areas, 
pattern of, 77 

Baltimore, Maryland: Negro population, number and percent, 1930, 64, 71; 

Population increase, 1920-1930, 86; Chart of population growth, 1790- 

1930, 87; Central growth, example of, 100; Real estate promoters, influence 

of, 119; Growth of settled areas, map, 158 
Barrington, Illinois: In Chicago growth pattern, 99 
Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Negro population, 1930, 64; Non-white population, 

concentration of, 66; Rent, distribution of blocks by, 73 
Beaumont, Texas: Negro population, 1930, 64 
Bellwood, Illinois: Dwellings, distribution of in, 26; In Chicago growth 

pattern, 99 
Berlin, Germany: Population decline in central part of, 92 
Berwyn, Illinois: Dwellings, distribution of in, 26 
Bessemer, Alabama: Negro population, 1930, 64 
Binghamton, New York: Negro population, concentration of, 67; Rent areas, 

pattern of, distribution of, 77 
Birmingham, Alabama: Negro population, concentration, number and per- 
cent, distribution of, 63-68; Rent, distribution of blocks by, 72, 73; Popula- 
tion, increase of 1920-1930, 86 
Bluefield, West Virginia: Growth of residential areas, 1900-1935, map, 165 
Blue Island, Illinois: Dwellings, distribution of, 26 
Boise, Idaho: Population increase, 1920-1930, 86; Negro population, block 

concentration of, 67 
Boston, Massachusetts: Settled areas as affected by topography, 12; Negro 

population, 1930, 64; Shifts in residential areas, 115; Growth of settled 

areas, map, 158 
Bronx, New York: Dwellings, multiple family in, 24; Distribution of, 25; In 

New York growth pattern, 99 
Bronxville, New York:Transportation influences, residential area, 118 
Brooklyn, New York: Pattern of heavy industry, 23; Dwellings, multiple 

family, 24; Different types, 25; In New York growth pattern, 99; Industry 

in home areas, 111 
Buffalo, New York: Pattern of heavy industry, 23; Negro population, 1930, 64 
Burlington, Vermont: Negro population, block concentration of, 67; Increase 

in population, 1920-1930, 86 
Butte, Montana: Negro population, block concentration of, 67; Chart of 

population trend, 1880-1930, 87 

Camden, New Jersey: Negro population, 1930, 64 

Casper, Wyoming: Negro population, block concentration of, 67; Rent, dis- 
tribution of blocks by, 77 

Charleston, South Carolina: Spot map, condition of structures, 29; Major 
repairs, houses needing, 29; Negro population, 63, 64, 66, 68; Rent, distribu- 
tion of blocks by, 75; Growth, compared with Charleston, W. Va., 82, 
High rent area, rate of movement, 84; Population decrease in 1920-1930, 
86; Rents, map of, by blocks, 139 



Charleston, West Virginia: Commercial areas, string-like development, 19; 
Growth compared with Charleston, S. C, 82; High rent areas, shifts in loca- 
tion of, 115, 116; Shifts in central business area, 109; Pattern of growth, 159; 
Settled areas, map, 159 

Chicago, Illinois: Settled area, topography, effect of, 12, map, 14; Central 
business areas, 15, 109-111; Retail center, location, 19; Financial center, loca- 
tion, 19; Gold coast, 23; Clearing district, 23; Apartments, tall, along Lake, 
25; Dwellings, distribution of, 26; Negro population, 1930, 64, Pattern of, 
69-71; Colonies, foreign, 62, 120. 121; "Black belt," 68; "Little Italy," 
68; Outlying shopping centers, 109; Rent areas, distribution, pattern 
of, 77; Residential areas, movement of, 82, 83, growth of 166; High rent area, 
movement of, 83, 116; Population, increase, 1920-1930, 86, chart of growth, 
1840-1930, 87, growth and business conditions, 89, increase, 1835-1934, 91, 
decline atcenter. 1840-1930,92;Construction cycle, 93; Growth, affected by 
transportation, 102, of central business and manufacturing areas, 109-111, of 
residential areas, 166; Changes in land use, 107; See South Chicago; East 
Chicago, Indiana; Cicero, Illinois; Chicago Heights, Illinois. 

Chicago Heights, Illinois: Distribution of dwelling units in, 26 

Cicero, Illinois: Distribution of dwellings in, 26; Separate community, 88 

Cincinnati, Ohio: Negro population, 1930, 64; Population growth, 1810-1930, 
87; Movement away from river, 117 

Cleveland, Ohio: Manufacturing, pattern of, 20; Real property inventory 
1934, largest city in, 58; Negro population, number, 64, block concentration 
of, 66; Promoters, influence of, 119; Shaker Heights, rent, distribution of 
blocks by, 73; High rent areas, 75; Central business area, movement of, 109; 
Rental area, map 

Clifton, New Jersey: Distribution of dwellings in, 25 

Columbia, South Carolina: Negro population, 64; Negro block concentration, 
66; Rent, distribution of blocks by, 77 

Columbus, Georgia: Negro population, 64 

Columbus, Ohio: Percentage of families in single family dwellings, 24; Negro 
population, 1930, 64 

Concord, New Hampshire: Population increase, 192O-1930, 86 

Coral Gables, Florida: Origin as high rent area, 116 

Dallas, Texas: Negro population, 1930, 64, block concentration of, 66; Rent, 
distribution of blocks by, 73; Rent areas, pattern of, 77, map of, 141, move- 
ment of, 160; Population increase, 1920-1930, 86; Settled areas, map of, 159 

Dayton, Ohio: Negro population, 1930, 64; Population increase, 1920-1930, 86 

Dearborn, Michigan: Population, growth of, 84 

Decatur, Illinois: Negro population, block concentration of, 67 

Des Moines, Iowa: Negro population, block concentration of, 67; High rent 
areas, 74, 75; Rent areas, pattern of, 74-77, map of, 142; Low rent areas, 76; 
Population, increase 1920-1930, 86 

Des Plaines, Illinois: In Chicago growth pattern, 99 

Detroit, Michigan: Business district, central, 15; Commercial development, 
string-like, 19; Industry, pattern of, 23, invasion of home areas, 111; Age of 
structures, pattern, 34; Negro population, 64, 71; High rent area, shifts in, 
74, 82, 84; Growth, as result of automobile industry, influenced by transpor- 
tation, 84; Population, increase in, 1920-1930, 86; New construction, location 
of, 95, 136; Movement of business district, 108; Rental areas, and settled 
area, 161 

Durham, North Carolina: Negro population, number and percent, 1930, 64 



East Chicago, Indiana: Indian Harbor, pattern of heavy industry, 23; Distri- 
bution of dwelling units in, 26 
East Orange, New Jersey: Distribution of dwellings in, 25 
East St. Louis, Illinois: Negro population, number and percent, 1930, 64 
Elmhurst, Illinois: Distribution of dwellings in, 26; In Chicago growth pat- 
tern, 99 



175 



Emporia, Kansas: Land coverage map, 13; Land uses, 15, 18; Industrial areas. 23 
Erie, Pennsylvania: Non-white population, block concentration of, 67 
Evanston, Illinois: Distribution of dwellings, 26; Neighborhoods, stability of, 
88, 120; In Chicago growth pattern, 99 

Fargo, North Dakota: Non-white population, block concentration of, «1 

Forest Park, Illinois: In Chicago growth pattern, 99 

Fort Worth, Texas: Negro population, 1930, 64; Increase of population, 1920- 

1930, 86 
Frederick, Maryland: Non-white population, block concentration of, 66 

Galveston, Texas: Negro population, 1930, 64 

Garden City, New York: Single family home area, 24; Distribution of dwell- 
ings in, 25; In New York growth pattern, 99 

Gary, Indiana: Industry, pattern of heavy, 23; Dwellings, distribution of, 26; 
Rents, average as typical, 32, 33; Negro population, 1930, 64 

Glencoe, Illinois: In Chicago growth pattern, 99 

Great Neck, New York: Distribution of dwellings, 25 

Greensboro, North Carolina: Negroes, number, distribution, concentration, 
64, 65, 66; Non-white population, block concentration of, 65, 66; Rent, dis- 
tnbution of blocks by, 73, 74 

Greenville, South Carolina: Negro population, 1930, 64 

Greenwich Village, New York City: In New York growth pattern, 99 

Hagerstown, Maryland : Negro population, block concentration of, 66 

Harlem, New York City: In New York growth pattern, 99 

Hartford, Connecticut: Population increase, 1920-1930, 86 

Hastings on the Hudson, New York: Dwellings, distribution of, 25 

Helena, Montana: Population increase, 1920-1930. 86 

Hempstead, L. I., New York: Distribution of dwellings, 25; In New York 

growth pattern, 99 
Highland Park, Illinois: Distribution of dwellings, 26; In Chicago growth 

pattern, 99 
Highwood, Illinois: In Chicago growth pattern, 99 
Hoboken, New Jersey: Distribution of dwellings, 25 
Houston, Texas: Negro population, 1930, 64; Population increase, 1920- 

1930, 86 
Huntington, West Virginia: Negro population, number, 64, distribution, 65, 

concentration, 66; Rent, distribution of blocks by, 73 

Indianapolis, Indiana: Negro population, number and percent, 1930, 64; Rent, 
distribution of blocks by, 73; Rental areas, location of high and low, 74~76; 
Residential areas, pattern of distribution by rent, 77; Map of, average rents, 
143 

Iron wood City, Michigan: Trend of population, 84 

Jackson, Mississippi: Negro population, number and percent, 1930, 64; Block 
concentration of non-white population, 66; Negro population, segregation, 
concentration, 68; Rent, distribution of blocks by, 74~77; Increase in popu- 
lation, 1920-1930, 86; Average rents, map, 144 

Jacksonville, Florida: Negro population, number 64, distribution, 65, concen- 
tration, 66; Rent, distribution of blocks by, 73; Residential areas, location of 
high and low rent, 74-76; Pattern of rent areas, 77; Map of, average rents, 
145 

Jefferson City, Missouri: Map of land use, cited, 24 

Jersey City, New Jersey: Negro population, 1930, 64; Population increase, 
1920-1930, 86 

Johnstown, Pennsylvania: Industries, 23 

Kansas City, Kansas: Negro population, 1930, 64; Population increase, 1920- 
1930, 86 

Kansas City, Missouri: Growth, affected by river, 12, land use, change in, 
108, movement from river, 117; Negro population, 64, 71; Population in- 
crease, 1920-1930, 86; Promoters, influence of, 119; Settled area, map, 159 

Kenilworth, Illinois: Negro population, concentration of by blocks, 67; Resi- 
dential areas, pattern of distribution of, 77 

Key West, Florida: Population trend, 84, 86, 87 

Knoxville, Tennessee: Negro population, 1930, 64; concentration by blocks, 
66; Residential areas, distribution by rent, 75, 76, 77; Map, average rents, 
146 

La Grange, Illinois: Distribution of dwellings, 26 
Lake Bluff, Illinois: In Chicago growth pattern, 99 



Lake Forest, Illinois: Distribution of dwellings, 26; In Chicago growth pat- 
tern, 99; Fashionable area maintained, 120 

Lancaster, Pennsylvania: Manufacturing area, pattern, 20; Land use map, 21 

Lansing, Michigan: Negro population, concentration by blocks, 67; Distri- 
bution of blocks by, 73; Rental areas, pattern of distributions, 77 

Larchmont, New York: Distribution of dwellings in, 25; Single family home 
area, 28; In New York growth pattern, 99 

Leadville, Colorado: Population trend, 1900-1930, chart, 87 

Lexington, Kentucky: Negro population, 1930,64 

Lincoln, Nebraska: Negro population, concentration of by blocks, 67 

Little Rock, Arkansas: Negro population, 64-66; Residential areas, distribu- 
tion by rent, 74; Population increase, 1920-1930, 86 

Lombard, Illinois: In Chicago growth pattern, 99 

London, England: Retail shopping center, 19; Population decline in central 
part, 92 

Los Angeles, California: Land survey map, 11; Business district, central, 15; 
Growth, causes of, 84; Population, increase, 1920-1930, 86, increase, 1850- 
1930, charts, 87, cycles of growth, 89, increase, 1900-1937, 91 

Louisville, Kentucky: Land use map cited, 24; Negro population, 64; Popu- 
lation increase, 1920-1930, 86 

Macon, Georgia: Negro population, 1930, 64 

Mamaroneck, New York: Distribution of dwellings, 25 

Manhattan, New York: Non-white occupancy, distribution of, 65; Vertical 
expansion, 107 

Manhattan Island, New York: Multiple family units, 24; Decline in popula- 
tion, 92 

Maplewood, New Jersey: Single family home area, 24; Distribution of dwell- 
ings, 25; in New York growth pattern, 99; Transportation influences resi- 
dential area, 118 

May wood, Illinois: Distribution of dwellings, 26; In Chicago growth pat- 
tern, 99 

Memphis, Tennessee: Negro population, 63, 64; Population increase, 1920- 
1930, 86 

Meridian, Mississippi: Negro population, 1930, 64 

Miami, Florida: Industries, absence of, 23, 84; Negro population, 64, 71; 
Causes of growth, 84; Population, increase, 1920-1930, 86, chart of popula- 
tion growth, 1900-1930, 87; Transportation, influence on growth, 102; Land 
use, changes, 108; Residential areas, movement, 1921-1936, map, 167 

Milwaukee, Wisconsin: Population increase of, 1920-1930, 86 

Minneapolis, Minnesota: Negro population, concentration of, by blocks, 67; 
Rent, distribution of blocks by, 73; Residential rental areas, location of high 
and low, 75, 76, pattern of, 77, shifts in location of high grade, 115, 116, 
map of, 147 

Mobile, Alabama: Negro population, 1930, 64 

Monroe, Louisiana: Negro population, 1930, 64 

Montclair, New Jersey: Distribution of dwellings, 25; Residential area, effect 
of transportation on, 118 

Montgomery, Alabama: Negro population, 1930, 64 

Mount Prospect, Illinois: In Chicago growth pattern, 99 

Mount Vernon, New York: Distribution of dwellings, 25 

Muncie, Indiana: Real property survey, 124 

Nashville, Tennessee: Negro population, 1930, 64 

Nashua, New Hampshire: Negro population, concentration of by blocks, 67; 

Residential areas, pattern of distribution, 77 
Natchez, Mississippi: Negro population, 71 
Newark, New Jersey: Negro population, 1930, 64 
New Haven, Connecticut: Manuacturing, pattern of, 20 
New Orleans, Louisiana: Settled area, as affected by river, 12, map of, 158; 

Negro population, 63, 64; Population, increase, 1920-1930, 86, Growth, 

pattern of, 1 00 
Newport News, Virginia: Negro population, 1930, 64 
New York, New York: Settled areas, affected by topography, map of growth, 

1800-1934, 157; Financial center, 19; Retail center, 19; Park Avenue, 23; 

Multiple family units, 24; "Little Italy," 63; Negro population, 64; Harlem, 

68, 71; High grade residential areas, movement of, 82; Population increase, 

1920-1930, 86, 87; Growth, causes of, 84, pattern of, 99; Land use, changes, 

105, 106 
Norfolk, Virginia: Negro population, 64, 68 
Norw-ood, Park, Illinois: In Chicago growth pattern, 99 



176 



OaklanJ, California: Rent, average as typical of rents in block, 32, 33 

Oak Park, Illinois: Distribution of dwellings in, 26; Neighborhoods main- 
tained, 88, 120; In Chicago growth pattern, 99 

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma: Negro population, 1930, 64-66; Rent, distribu- 
tion of block.-, by, 73; Residential areas, high or low rent, 74-76, pattern of 
distribution, 77; Population, increase, 1920-1930, 86, increase, 1890-1930, 
chart, 87; Average rents, map, 148 

Omaha, Nebraska: Negro population, 1930, 64; Population increase in, 1920- 
1930, 86 

Oranges, New Jersey: In New York growth pattern, 99; Residential area, 
effect of transportation on, 118 

Paducah, Kentucky: Negro population, 66; Rent, areas, pattern of distribu- 

tion, 77 
Palestine, Illinois: In Chicago growth pattern, 99 

Paris, France: Retail shopping center, 19; Population decline in central part, 92 
Parkersburg, West Virginia: Population increase, 1920-1930, 86 
Park Ridge, Illinois: Distribution of dwellings, 26; In Chicago growth pattern, 99 
Passaic, New Jersey: Distribution of dwellings, 25 
Paterson, New Jersey: Distribution of dwellings, 25 
Pelham, New York: Single family home areas, 24; Distribution of dwellings, 

25; In New York growth pattern, 99; Transportation influences residential 

area, 118 
Peoria, Illinois: Negro population, distribution, 67, Rent distribution of blocks 

by, 73, 75-77; Rent areas, location of, 75, 76, pattern of, 77; Rents, map, 149 
Petersburg, Virginia: Negro population, 1930, 64 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Industry, pattern of, 23; Rents, average as typical, 

32, 33; Negro population, 64, 71; Population increase, 1920-1930, 86; 

Growth, pattern of, 100; Business, outlying centers, 109; Settled areas, map, 

158; Rental areas and settled areas, map, 163 
Phoenix, Arfiona: Negro population, concentration by blocks, 66; Rent, dis- 

tribution of blocks by, 73; Population increase of, 1920-1930, 86 
Picayune, Mississippi: Negro population, 71 
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Industry, pattern of, 23; Negro population, 71; 

Population increase, 1920-1930, 86 
Port Arthur, Texas: Negro population, 1930, 64 
Portland, Maine: Negro population, concentration by blocks, 67; Population, 

increase in 1920-1930, 86 
Portland, Oregon: Negro population, concentration by blocks, 67; Growth^ 

causes of, 84; Population increase, 1920-1930, 1860-1930, 86, 87 
Portsmouth, Virginia: Negro population, number and percent, 1930, 64 
Providence, Rhode Island: Negro population, concentration of, by blocks, 67; 

High rent areas, 75, 76; Rental area, pattern of, 77; Population increase, 

1920-1930, 86; Residential areas, by average rent, 150 
Pueblo, Colorado: Non-white population, concentration by blocks, 66; Rent, 

distribution of blocks by, 72, 73 
Pullman, Illinois: Separate community, 88 

Queens, New York: Single family areas, 24; Different types of dwellings, 25 

Racine, Wisconsin: Non-white population, concentration by blocks, 67 

Raleigh, North Carolina: Negro population, 1930, 64 

Reno, Nevada: Non-white population, concentration by blocks, 67; Rents, 
distribution of blocks by, 75; Rental areas, pattern of, 77, map of, 151; 
Population, increase, 1920-1930, 86 

Richmond Borough, New York: Distribution of dwellings, 25 

Richmond, Virginia: Illustrative purposes, use of Richmond for, 4-5; Patterns 
of age of structures, 34-36, 37, of rent, 34, 35, of owner occupancy, 37, 38, 
of condition of structure, 39, 40, of bath, private, 39-41, of central heat,42- 
45, of overcrowded units, 44-46; Block data map, section of, 30; Age of 
structures, pattern of, 34-36, 37 Rent, pattern of, 34, 35, distribution of 
blocks by, 73; Condition of structures, pattern of, 39, 40, related to rents, 53; 
Central heat, pattern of, 42, 45; Negro families, pattern of, 42, rent, relation 
to, 54, number, 63, 64, 68, 71, distribution, 65, concentration, 66; Over- 
crowded dwellings, pattern of, 44, 46, rent, relation to, 55; Owner occupancy, 
related to rent, 52; Bath, private, related to rent, 53; Residential areas, by 
rent, high rent areas, location, 74-75, pattern of, 77, movement of high rent, 
115, 116, 160, map of, 152 

Roanoke, Virginia: Negro population, 1930, 64 

Rochester, New York: Population increase, 1920-1930, 86 



Sacramento, California: Map of land use, cited, 24; Non-white population 
concentration of, 66 

St. Joseph, Missouri: Non-white population, concentration of, 66; Residential 
areas, location of high rent, 76; Pattern of rent distribution, 77 

St. Louis, Missouri: River, effect on settled area, 12; movement from, 117. 
Negro population, 64, 71; Population, increase 1920-1930, 86, chart, 1900- 
1930, 87, decline at center, 92 

St. Paul, Minnesota: Non-white population, concentration of, 67; Rent, dis- 
tribution of blocks by, 73; Residential areas, pattern of, 77; Population 
increase, 1920-1930, 86 

Sr.lt Lake City, Utah: Non-white population, concentration of, 67; Residential 
areas, by rent, location of, 75, 76, pattern of, 77, map, 153, compared to 
settled area, 164; Population, increase, 1920-1930, 86, chart, 1860-1930, 87; 
Settled areas, map, 159 

San Antonio, Texas: Map of land use, cited, 24; Negro population, 1930, 64 

San Diego, California: Non-white population, block concentration of, 66; 
Rent, distribution of blocks by, 73 

Santa Fe, New Mexico: Non-white population, block concentration of, 67; 
Rent, distribution of blocks by, 74; Population increase, 1920-1930, 86 

San Francisco, California: Chinatown, 62; Population increase in, 1920-1930, 
86; Chart of growth, 1850-1930, 87; Shifts in location of fashionable resi- 
dential areas, 115; Settled areas, map, 159 

Savannah, Georgia: Negro population, 63, 64 

Scarsdale, New York: As single family home area, 24; Dwellings, distribution 
of, 25; In New York growth pattern, 99; Transportation influences, resi- 
dential area, 118 

Schenectady, New York: Based on General Electric Plant, 84 

Seattle, Washington: Non-white population, concentration of, 67; Rent, 
distribution of blocks by, 73, 76-77; Residential areas, location of high rents, 
pattern of, 77; Population growth, chart of, 1870-1930, 87; Business section, 
movement of, 108; Shifts in location of fashionable residential areas, 115; 
Residential areas, map, average rents, 154 

Shreveoort, Louisiana: Negro population, 1030, 64-66; Non-white population, 
64-66; Rent, distribution of blocks by, 73 

Sioux Falls, South Dakota: Non-white population, concentration of, 67; Rent, 
distribution of blocks by, 73 

South Chicago, Illinois: Land survey map, 16; Transportation, influence on 
growth, 102 

Spartanburg, South Carolina: Average rent as typical of rents, 32, 33; Real 
property test survey, 125 

Springfield, Illinois: Population increase, 1920-1930, 86 

Springfield, Missouri: Map of land use, cited, 24; Non-white population, con- 
centration of by blocks, 67; Residential areas, location of high rent, 74-77; 
Pattern of rent distribution, 77 

Syracuse, New York: Non-white population, concentration of, 67; Rent, 
distribution of blocks by, 72, 73 ; Residential areas, location of, 74-77 

Tampa, Florida: Negro population, 1930, 64 

Toledo, Ohio: Negro population, 1930, 64 

Topeka, Kansas: Non-white population, block concentration of, 66; Rent, 

distribution of blocks by, 74 ; Residential areas, location of, 74-77; PoDulation 

increase of, 1920-1930, 86; Residential areas, by rent, map, 155 
Trenton, New Jersey: Non-white population, block concentration of, 66; Rent, 

distribution of blocks by, 74, Residential areas, location of, 74-77; Average 

rents, map, 156 
Tulsa, Oklahoma: Negro nopulation, 1930, 64; Population, rate of growth, 84 

Vicksburg, Mississippi: Negro population, 1930, 64 

Washington, D. C: Land survey map, 1917, 10; Settled areas, 12, 103, 158; 
Commercial development, string-like, 19; Apartments on periphery, 26; 
Rent, average as typical of rents, 32, 33, distribution of blocks by, 74; 
Age of structures, 34, 137; Negro population, 64, 68, 86; Population in- 
crease, 86; Growth, pattern of, 99, 100, settled areas, 158; Transportation 
lines, 103; Residential areas, movement of, 112, 113, 169; Real property 
inventory, 124, 125 

Waterbury, Connecticut: Non- white population, concentration of, 67; Rent, 
distribution of blocks by, 72-74; Residential areas, location of, 74 

Waukegan, Illinois: In Chicago growth pattern, 99 

Wellington, Kansas: Pattern of manufacturing area, 20; Land use map, 22 



177 



Wheaton, Illinois: Dwellings, distribution of, 26; In Chicago growth pattern, 99 
Wheeling, West Virginia: Non-white population, concentration of, 67 
White Plains, New York: As single family home area, 24; Dwellings, distri- 
bution of, 25 
Wichita, Kansas: Non-white population, concentration of, 66; Rent, distri- 
bution of blocks by, 74 
Wichita Falls, Texas: Non-white population, concentration of, 66; Rent, dis- 
tribution of blocks by, 72, 74, 77; Residential areas, location of, 74, 77 
Williamsport, Pennsylvania: Non-white population, concentration of, 67 
Wilmette, Illinois: Dwellings, distribution of, 26; In Chicago growth pattern, 99 
Wilmington, Delaware: Negro population, 1930, 64; Rent, distribution of 
blocks by, 72-74; Residential areas, location of, 74, 77 



Wilmington, North Carolina: Negro population, 1930, 64 
Winnetka, Illinois: Dwellings, distribution of, 26; In Chicago growth pattern, 99 
Winston-Salem, North Carolina: Negro population, 1930, 64 
Worcester, Massachusetts: Non-white population, concentration of, 67; Rent, 
distribution of blocks by, 74 

Yonkers, New York: Dwellings, distribution of, 25 

Youngstown, Ohio: Pattern of heavy industry, 23; Negro population, 1930, 64 

Zanesville, Ohio: Rent, distribution of blocks by, 74; Non-white population, 
concentration of, 67 



o 



178 






o 
u 



LJ